i 


1 


ii 


'""'"■'■"- 


raotitiUftiiUiiH 


Jh 


^ 


A  SOCIAL  HISTORY 

OF 

THE  AMERICAN   FAMILY 

Vol.  I 


A  SOCIAL  HISTORY 


OF 


THE  AMERICAN  FAMILY 

FROM  COLONIAL  TIMES 
TO  THE  PRESENT 


BY 

ARTHUR  W.  CALHOUN,  Ph.D. 


VOL.  I 
COLONIAL  PERIOD 


THE  ARTHUR  H.  CLARK  COMPANY 

CLEVELAND,  U.S.A. 

1917 


COPYRIGHT,    1917,  BY 

ARTHUR  W.  CALHOUN 


To 

MY  MOTHER 

who  made  it  possible 


CONTENTS 

Preface    9 

I  Old  World  Origins -the  wider  Background      .  13 

II  Old  World  Origins  -  specific  Sources  ...  29 

III  Courtship  and  Marriage  in  colonial  New  Eng- 

land        51 

IV  The  New  England  Family  -  Prestige  and  Func-  ^ — 

TIONS 67 

•  V      The  Position  of  Women  in  the  New  England  ^ 

colonial  Family .  83—-, 

VI     The  Status  of  Children  in  the  New  England 

colonial  Family 105  A"^ 

•  VII    Sex  Sin  and  Family  Failure  in  colonial  New  ^ 

\  England 129  ^ 

yill  Sex  and  Marriage  in  colonial  New  York  . 
"iX     Family   Life   and   Problems   in    colonial   New 

York  167 

X  Colonial  New  Jersey  and  Delaware  .        .        .         185 

XI  The  Family  in  colonial  Pennsylvania        .        .         199 

XII  The    Family    Motive   in    southern    Coloniza- 

tion       215 

XIII  Familism    and    Home    Life    in    the    colonial  ^^' 

South 229       '•'' 

XIV  Southern  colonial  Courtship  and  Marriage  as 

social  Institutions 245 

XV  Regulation  and  Solemnization  of  Marriage  in 

THE  southern  Colonies 259 

XVI  Woman's  Place  in  the  colonial  South        .        .        273 


8  Contents 

XVII     Cmi.DHdOD    IN    THE    C()L(1NIAL    SoUTH    .  ,  .  285 

•   XVIII  Family    Pathdlogy  and  social  Censorship  in 

THK    COLONIAL    SoUTH  .....  299 

XIX  Ser\itude    and    Sexuality    in    the    southern 

Colonies 313 

XX  French  Colonies  in  the  West  .        .        .        .        331 
Bibliography 337 


PREFACE 

The  three  volumes  of  which  this  is  the  first  are  an 
attempt  to  develop  an  understanding  of  the  forces  that 
have  been  operative  in  the  evolution  of  family  institu- 
tions in  the  United  States.  They  set  forth  the  nature  of 
the  influences  that  have  shaped  marriage,  controlled 
fecundity,  determined  the  respective  status  of  father, 
mother,  child,  attached  relative,  and  servant,  influenced 
sexual  morality,  and  governed  the  function  of  the  fam- 
ily as  an  educational,  economic,  moral,  and  spiritual 
institution  as  also  its  relation  to  state,  industry,  and  so- 
ciety in  general  in  the  matter  of  social  control.  The 
work  is  primarily  a  contribution  to  genetic  sociology. 

Not  until  such  an  investigation,  as  lies  back  of  these 
volumes,  has  been  undertaken  is  it  possible  to  realize 
the  absolute  dearth  of  connected  and  systematic  mate- 
rial on  the  general  history  of  the  American  family  as  a 
social  institution  in  relation  to  other  social  institutions 
and  to  "the  social  forces."  In  this  as  in  so  many  other 
vital  fields  of  human  interest  and  action,  everything  has 
hitherto  been  taken  for  granted.  In  view,  therefore,  of 
the  increasing  attention  given  in  recent  years  to  the 
problems  of  the  modern  family,  such  as  conditions  of 
marriage,  the  birth-rate,  the  waning  of  home  activities, 
the  insurgency  of  the  child,  the  economic  independence 
of  woman,  sexual  morality,  divorce,  and  general  family 
instability,  it  seems  that  the  main  lines  of  family  evolu- 
tion in  the  United  States  should  be  made  accessible  not 
merely  to  the  professional  student  of  sociology  but  also 


lO         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

to  the  thinking  public.  The  present  work  is  in  answer 
to  that  realized  need. 

The  first  volume  of  the  series  covers  the  colonial 
period  and  sets  forth  the  germination  of  the  American 
family  as  a  product  of  European  folkways,  of  the  eco- 
nomic transition  to  modern  capitalism,  and  of  the  dis- 
tinctive environment  of  a  virgin  continent.  Usages 
imported  from  Europe  are  detailed  and  their  gradual 
modification  or  overthrow  under  the  influence  of  eco- 
nomic progress  and  the  sway  of  the  wilderness  is  exhib- 
ited. Variations  between  the  geographical  sections  are 
traced  to  mesological  and  population  differences  but  the 
general  similarity  of  North  and  South  is  affirmed  as  a 
preliminary  to  the  study  of  their  divergence  in  the  na- 
tional period.  In  general,  the  colonial  family  is  pre- 
sented as  a  property  institution  dominated  by  middle 
class  standards,  and  operating  as  an  agency  of  social 
control  in  the  midst  of  a  social  order  governed  by  the 
interests  of  a  forceful  aristocracy  which  shaped  religion, 
education,  politics,  and  all  else  to  its  own  profit.  The 
characteristics  of  the  family  in  the  English  colonies  re- 
ceive accentuation  from  a  brief  view  of  the  French 
settlements  by  the  Gulf. 

In  the  second  volume,  the  period  from  Independence 
through  the  Civil  War  is  covered  under  five  main 
heads:  the  influence  of  pioneering  and  the  frontier,  the 
rise  of  urban  industrialism,  the  growth  of  luxury  and 
extravagance,  the  culmination  of  the  regime  of  slavery, 
and  the  consequences  of  the  Civil  War.  Cleavages  be- 
tween East  and  West  and  between  North  and  South  are 
made  manifest  in  this  volume  and  the  interaction  of 
their  several  influences  is  noted.  It  is  also  made  evident 
that  all  the  alarming  problems  that  to-day  portend  fam- 
ily disintegration  or  perversion  were  present  in  some 


Preface  1 1 

degree  in  ante-bellum  days  and  were  even  dwelt  upon 
with  alarm. 

The  third  volume  analyzes  the  factors  that  have  con- 
summated the  revolution  of  the  family  during  the  past 
fifty  years.  Stress  is  laid  on  the  advance  of  industrial- 
ism, urban  concentration,  the  growth  of  the  larger  cap- 
italism, the  immigrant  invasion,  the  passing  of  the 
frontier,  the  intensification  of  the  struggle  for  the  stan- 
dard of  living,  the  movements  of  rebellion  and  revolu- 
tion represented  by  such  manifestations  as  feminism  and 
socialism,  the  development  of  volitional  control  of  fam- 
ily evolution,  and  the  outlook  for  a  democratic  future. 
At  no  previous  point  save  in  the  last  stages  of  chattel- 
dom  in  the  South  does  the  economic  factor  extrude  so 
overwhelmingly. 

In  common  with  the  best  recent  historical  works,  due 
place  has  been  given  to  "the  Economic  Interpretation," 
but  with  studied  avoidance  of  fantastic  exaggeration. 
The  true  claims  of  the  dispassionate  historical  spirit 
have  been  held  steadily  in  view.  If  it  seem  to  the 
reader  that  undue  attention  has  been  given  to  patho- 
logical abnormalities,  he  should  bear  in  mind  that  the 
American  history  with  which  most  readers  are  familiar 
has  been  written  by  litterateurs  or  historians  with  little 
perspective  save  that  which  inheres  in  loyalty  to  the 
established  order,  in  the  attenuated  atmosphere  of  the 
middle  class,  or  in  the  desire  to  glorify  the  past,  it  may 
be  of  New  England  with  its  ancestral  worthies,  or  of 
some  other  section  in  the  romantic  days.  Those  trained 
in  the  literature  of  such  shallow  schools  naturally  find 
it  hard  to  put  aside  prepossessions  and  to  refrain  from 
confounding  the  disclosures  of  science  with  the  product 
of  the  muck-raker. 

Years  of  research,  analysis,  and  rumination  have  gone 


12  Preface 

into  the  preparation  of  these  volumes.  Exhaustive  in- 
vestigation of  source  writings  and  secondary  works  to- 
gether with  painstaking  reconstruction  and  interpreta- 
tion of  the  course  of  events  warrant  the  assurance  that 
the  present  work  is  the  most  complete,  fundamental, 
and  authoritative  treatment  of  the  field  that  it  covers. 
It  is  given  to  the  public  in  the  hope  that  it  will  call 
forth  a  vital  interest  in  the  further  development  of  this 
aspect  of  our  social  history. 

To  William  E.  Zeuch,  of  Clark  University,  I  am 
indebted  for  valued  assistance.  I  also  acknowledge 
special  indebtedness  to  the  libraries  of  the  State  His- 
torical Society  of  Wisconsin,  the  University  of  Wiscon- 
sin, and  the  University  of  Tennessee  for  access  to  the 
principal  sources  of  my  material,  and  to  my  wife  for 
assistance  and  inspiration  in  the  progress  of  the  manu- 
script. I  shall  also  be  under  obligation  to  such  critics 
of  the  work  as  shall  point  the  way  to  intrinsic  improve- 
ment in  the  presentation  of  so  momentous  a  theme. 

Arthur  Wallace  Calhoun. 
Clark  University,  November,  1916 


I.    OLD  WORLD  ORIGINS-THE  WIDER 
BACKGROUND^ 

American  family  institutions  are  a  resultant  of  three 
main  factors:  the  complex  of  medieval  tradition  evolved  • 
through  the  centuries  on  the  basis  of  ancient  civilization 
plus  the  usages  of  its  barbarian  successor;  the  economic 
transition  from  medieval  landlordism  to  modern  cap- 
italism; and  the  influence  of  environment  in  an  unfold-  - 
ing  continent.  It  is  necessary  to  begin  this  study  with 
a  survey  of  the  European  background.^ 

Medieval  thought  on  the  sex  relation  was  inconsistent. 
Women  were  regarded,  sometimes  as  perils,  again  as 
objects  of  worship.  The  extremes  embodied  themselves 
in  celibacy  and  in  the  minne-cult.  Which  was  the  more 
pregnant  of  depravity  it  would  be  hard  to  say.^ 

Military  mores  are  always,  at  bottom,  disdainful  of  ' 
women.  Chivalry  with  its  sentimental  immorality  gave 
women  hyperbolic  praise  in  place  of  justice.  Material 
advantage  was  the  gist  of  medieval  marriage.  Women 
were  an  incident  to  their  fiefs  to  be  disposed  of  in  love- 
less marriage.  In  the  fifteenth  century,  cases  of  wives 
prostituted  for  gain  to  themselves  and  husbands  were 
alleged  in  argument  against  matrimony.    In  the  larger 

^  Compare  Goodsell,  History  of  the  Family,  chapters  vii-viii.  The  ap- 
pearance of  this  work  warrants  brevity  in  the  introductory  chapters  of  the 
present  treatise. 

2  In  introduction,  see  Bebel,  JVoman  and  Socialism,  chapters  i-iv;  Cooke, 
IVoman  in  the  Progress  of  Civilization,  chapters  i-iii;  Dealey,  The  Family, 
chapters  i-iv;  Goodsell,  History  of  the  Family,  chapters  i-ix. 

8  Compare  Cornish,  Chivalry,  chapter  xii. 


14         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

medieval  cities  there  were  official  brothels -municipal, 
state,  or  church  perquisites.  Strangers  of  note  were 
supplied  prostitutes  at  municipal  expense.  The  woman 
who  in  despair  killed  her  child  was  put  to  cruel  death, 
while  the  seducer  perhaps  even  sat  among  the  judges. 
Adultery  of  wives  met  severe  punishment.* 
/  It  may  be  that  marriages  turned  out  as  well  in  the 

Middle  Ages  as  now  and  that  adultery  was  not  more 
frequent.  There  was  not  wanting  certain  appreciation 
of  woman  as  wife  and  mother.  But  over  against  mod- 
ern divorce  laxity  may  be  set  medieval  ecclesiastical 
jugglery  which  sold  divorces  while  pretending  to  pro- 
hibit them.  In  like  manner  ecclesiastical  impediments 
to  marriage  could  be  removed  for  a  fee. 

It  is  impossible  to  harmonize  medieval  "love"  with 
the  strong  emphasis  laid  by  feudalism  on  female  chas- 
tity. The  desire  for  concentrated  transmission  of  feudal 
estates  to  legitimate  offspring  tended  to  monogamy  and 

•  wifely  purity.  Chastity  became  woman's  main  virtue. 
The  wife's  highest  duty  was  to  furnish  a  legitimate  male 

•  heir  to  the  family  perquisites.  Even  the  peasant  sought 
marriage  distinctly  as  a  means  of  getting  heirs.  Chas- 
tity was  not  incumbent  on  men.  A  kind  of  restraint 
was,  indeed,  incumbent  on  the  males  of  the  nobility  so 
far  as  women  of  their  own  class  were  concerned;  for 
male  relatives  would  visit  swift  punishment  on  the  man 
that  ruined  a  girl's  prospects  of  becoming  the  brood- 
mare to  some  noble  house.    But  women  of  the  working 

-  class  were  legitimate  prey  of  the  contemptuous  bestial- 
ity of  the  nobles.*^ 

The  master-class  encouraged  and  controlled  marriage 

*Bebel.     Woman  and  Socialism,  73-75. 

•^  On  this  paragraph,  compare  Meily,  Puritanism,  33-35;  Bebel,  IVoman 
and  Socialism,  80. 


Old  World  Origins  15 

among  the  menials  as  a  means  of  propagating  serfs  and 
securing  fees.  The  lord's  power  of  intercourse  with 
women  of  servile  rank  found  expression  mthQJus  primcB 
noctis  which  existed  even  into  modern  times. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  feudal  days  gave  to  women 
of  the  nobility  a  certain  prestige  and  dignity.  As  chate- 
laines they  even  won  military  distinction  in  cases  of 
siege.  Prolonged  separations  emphasized  the  mutual 
needs  of  the  two  sexes.  Life  in  the  family  remote  from 
males  of  equal  rank  softened  patriarchal  asperities. 
The  isolation  of  noble  ladies  exposing  them  somewhat 
to  the  lusts  of  base-born  men  required  all  knights  to  be 
their  champions.  Chivalry  had,  forsooth,  its  fairer 
side  and  performed  a  substantial  service  in  grafting 
upon  sex  passion  that  romantic  love  which,  distorted 
and  perverted  as  it  was  by  a  sickly  atmosphere  in  an 
age  highly  favorable  to  emotion  rather  than  to  reason, 
has  become  the  basis  of  all  that  is  fairest  in  sex  relations 
to-day  and  holds  the  key  to  the  future. 

In  the  Middle  Ages  woman  was  in  general  an  unre- 
corded cipher  lost  in  obscure  domestic  toil  and  the  bear- 
ing and  rearing  of  numerous  children.  She  generally 
welcomed  a  suitor  at  once  for  her  one  recourse  was  to 
lose  her  identity.  Military  slaughter  tended  to  disturb 
the  balance  of  the  sexes  and  magnify  the  value  of  men. 
Perhaps  the  witch  delusion  which  operated  unbeliev- 
ably to  decimate  the  ranks  of  women  was  to  their  sex  a 
blessing  in  disguise.  But  women  in  the  Middle  Ages 
probably  enjoyed  more  equality  with  men  than  most  of 
the  time  since. **  Some  held  responsible  positions  and 
displayed  executive  ability.  In  Saxon  England  women 
could  be  present  at  the  local  moot  and  even  at  the  na- 

<>  Compare  Position  of  IVomen:  Actual  and  Ideal,  46-47;  Abram,  English 
Life  and  Manners  in  the  later  Middle  Ages,  44. 


C- 


i6         The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

tional  Witanagemot.  Norman  rule  reduced  woman's 
rights,  yet  under  feudalism  women  could  hold  high 
state  office  in  default  of  male  heirs. 

In  artisan  circles,  when  the  revival  of  commerce 
brought  a  wider  market  for  the  products  of  household 
industry,  the  patriarchal  head  of  the  family  owned  the 
product  of  all  its  toil.  The  standard  of  living  in  the 
home  depended  solely  on  his  will.  But  gilds  admitted 
women,  and  women  often  engaged  in  commercial  pur- 
suits along  with  their  husbands  or  as  their  successors. 
In  fourteenth  century  England,  a  married  woman  was 
permitted  by  law  to  act  in  business  as  if  single  in  spite 
of  her  being  under  tutelage.  In  the  craft  gilds  wife 
and  daughters  worked  with  husband  and  father  at  his 
craft.  Journeymen  could  not  marry  but  the  master 
must  have  a  wife  of  approved  descent.  The  gild  super- 
vised the  training  of  children;  they  were  expected  to 
follow  their  parents'  craft.  Some  gilds  forbade  em- 
ployment of  wife  and  daughters  and  in  the  last  days  of 
the  gilds  this  prohibition  became  a  general  rule.  Girls 
were  helped  with  money  to  marry  or  go  into  a  religious 
house  as  they  chose. ^ 

Woman's  subordinate  position  in  marriage  came 
down  through  old  Teutonic  usage.  In  the  old  days  of 
ordeal  she  was  incapable  of  appearing  in  the  lists  in  her 
own  defense  and  had  to  be  represented  by  a  protector 
who,  in  case  of  wives,  was  of  course  the  husband.  Even 
late  in  the  Middle  Ages  "ein  Weib  zu  kaufen"  was  the 
stock  expression  for  getting  married.  The  idea  of  sale 
was  gone  but  its  place  had  been  taken  by  the  notion  of 
the  transfer  of  authority.  A  woman  was  always  under 
,  guardianship;  the  natural  warden  was  the  father;  at 

''  On  gild  privileges  for  women,  see  Brentano,  History  and  Development 
of  Gilds,  cxxxii;  Lipson,  Introduction  to  the  Eoromic  History  of  England, 
vol.  j,  316-318. 


Old  World  Origins  17 

marriage  the  wardship  passed  to  the  husband.  The 
common  law  is  voiced  thus  by  a  dramatic  character: 
"I  will  be  master  of  what  is  mine  own.  She  is  my 
goods,  my  chattels;  she  is  my  house,  my  household  stuff, 
my  field,  my  barn,  my  horse,  my  ox,  my  ass,  my  any- 
thing." The  wife  was  merged  in  the  husband;  legally 
she  did  not  exist. 

Our  traditional  common  law  in  cases  of  children 
and  real  estate  left  without  a  will  gave  a  son,  tho 
younger,  inheritance  before  a  daughter.  In  case  of  a 
daughter's  seduction,  her  father's  only  recourse  was  on 
the  ground  that  she  was  his  servant  and  that  the  seducer 
had  trespassed  on  his  property  and  deprived  him  of  the 
benefit  of  her  labor.  In  nearly  all  the  Teutonic  codes 
the  husband  had  the  right  to  beat  his  wife.  "Justice 
Brooke  affirmeth  plainly  that  if  a  man  beat  an  outlaw, 
a  traitor,  a  pagan,  his  villein,  or  his  wife  it  is  dispunish- 
able, because  by  the  Law  Common,  these  persons  can 
have  no  action."^  "Wives  in  England,"  says  an  Ant- 
werp merchant,  1599,  "are  entirely  in  the  power  of  their 
husbands,  their  lives  only  excepted."  Even  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  wife  trading  was  an  English  cus- 
tom.^ Until  the  reign  of  George  IV  burning  at  the 
stake  was  the  legal  penalty  for  wives  that  murdered 
their  husbands.'" 

Doubtless  the  reality  of  English  life  was  less  bar- 
barous than  the  law;  yet  we  are  describing  a  man-made 
world  in  which  economic  dependence  held  woman  in 
general  to  a  servile  level.  Her  training  corresponded 
to  her  sphere.  In  medieval  Europe  peasant  girls  were 
taught  to  work  in  house  and  field,  accept  the  conven- 
tional piety,  barely  to  read  and  write,  and  then  marry. 

8  Brace.     Gesta  Chrisii,  285-290. 

^  Earle.     Colonial  Dames  and   Goodivi'ves,   26,  29. 

^°  Yonge.     Site  of  Old  "James  Toivne,"  138. 


1 8         The  Anwrican   Family -Colonial  Period 

All  girls  were  taught  the  textile  arts.  Daughters  of 
wealthy  burghers  had  tutors  and  after  the  fourteenth 
century  there  were  schools  for  them  in  most  cities. 
Women  in  i:he  castles  had  enjoyed  the  same  education 
as  men.  The  convents,  also,  had  provided  training  for 
women.  But  the  rise  of  the  universities,  boisterously 
masculine,  detracted  from  the  education  of  women  and 
a  studied  contempt  for  women  developed. 

Many  Renaissance  writers  gave  woman  a  new  recog- 
nition. At  the  Renaissance  the  position  of  women  un- 
derwent a  marked  transformation.  Some  women  be- 
came professors  in  Italian  and  Spanish  universities." 
Erasmus  wrote  of  and  for  women,  though  not  with  en- 
tire approval  of  equal  educational  opportunities  for 
them.  He  said  the  wise  man  is  aware  that  nothing  is 
of  greater  advantage  to  woman's  morals  than  worthy 
knowledge.  Toward  the  close  of  feudalism  girls  were 
sent  from  castles  or  wealthy  burgher  homes  to  the  castles 
of  high  nobles  to  acquire  polish.  In  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury an  increasing  number  of  women -often  of  the  pros- 
perous middle  class -found  opportunities,  though  lim- 
ited, for  literary  and  classical  education.  Sir  Thomas 
More  believed  that  education  may  agree  equally  well 
with  both  sexes.  Agrippa  (in  a  work  published  in 
1530)  asserted  woman's  superiority  over  man  and  point- 
ed to  man's  tyranny  as  the  reason  for  woman's  dearth  of 
achievement." 

Like  women,  the  younger  children  of  the  medieval 
dignitary  were  subordinate.  Feudal  lands  were  limited 
in  area;  hence  title,  property,  rank,  and  power  passed 
to  one  child -the  oldest  male.  The  family  line  was  of 
huge  social  importance:  status  and  worth  depended  on 

11  Position  of  fFoman:  Actual  and  Ideal,  53. 

12  Compare  Cooke,  Woman  in  the  Progress  of  Civilization,  chapter  vi. 


Old  World  Origins  19 

what  one's  forebears  had  done.  Exaltation  of  the  family 
in  linear  extension  rather  than  expanse  was  vital  to  the 
prosperity  of  the  landed  class.  In  Germany,  where  the 
law  of  primogeniture  was  too  lax,  where  all  of  a  noble's 
children  were  noble  and  his  estates  free  from  entail,  the 
continual  multiplication  of  titles  and  subdivision  of  ter- 
ritories reduced  most  houses  to  relative  poverty.  The 
German  noble  might  provide  for  younger  sons  by  se- 
curing them  appointment  to  some  rich  benefice  but  this 
practice  augmented  social  unrest. 

As  chivalry  sank  in  decadence  the  cities  flourished 
and  in  them  the  busy,  prosaic  middle  class  whose  rise 
burst  forth  in  the  Reformation.  Bourgeois  wives  found 
complete  satisfaction  around  the  domestic  hearth.  In 
modest  bourgeois  circles  small  attention  was  given  to 
the  mental  culture  of  children.  Girls  generally  grew 
up  under  the  sole  supervision  of  their  mothers,  or  at 
best  enjoyed  convent  training  directed  to  piety  and  do- 
mestic accomplishments,  in  which  they  became  very  pro- 
ficient. Girls  married  even  in  their  fourteenth  year. 
Fathers  attached  no  small  importance  to  practical  ad- 
vantages in  matrimony,  and  the  longing  of  maidens  for 
rich  knights  was  widespread.  It  came  to  be  no  dis- 
grace for  a  prince  to  marry  a  girl  of  the  middle  class, 
for  such  a  match  might  serve  as  a  means  of  reviving 
fading  fortunes.  Aeneas  Sylvius  (afterwards  Pope  Pius 
II)  said  of  Germany  about  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth 
century:  "Where  is  the  woman  (I  do  not  speak  of  the 
nobility,  but  of  the  bourgeoisie)  who  does  not  glitter 
with  gold?  What  profusion  of  gold  and  pearls,  orna- 
ments, reliquaries."  By  the  sixteenth  century,  the  cas- 
tled knights  saw  the  burghers  living  in  houses  that,  to 
the  dwellers  in  uncomfortable  castles,  seemed  the  height 
of  luxury.     The  knights'  ladies  coveted  the  princely 


20         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

silks  and  velvets  and  jewels  that  decked  the  vs^omenfolk 
of  the  bourgeoisie.  Even  when  the  medieval  sumptu- 
ary laws  forbidding  the  burghers  to  wear  pearls  and 
velvet  were  not  disobeyed,  the  wives  and  daughters  of 
the  middle  class  could  solace  themselves  with  silks  and 
diamonds.  And  to  the  noble  lady,  the  exclusive  privi- 
lege of  wearing  pearls  and  velvet  was  small  comfort  in 
default  of  the  means  of  procuring  them.  The  knights' 
attempts  to  rival  the  burghers  brought  on  ruin.  Switz- 
erland saw  a  similar  riot  of  conspicuous  consumption. 

Morals  were  lax.  For  the  satisfaction  of  vanity  and 
desire  for  enjoyment,  the  daughters  of  citizens  often  al- 
lowed themselves  to  be  drawn  aside  from  the  path  of 
womanly  honor.  In  cases  of  seduction,  where  the  suitor 
broke  his  word  and  tried  to  back  out  after  betrothal,  the 
practical  father  exacted  rich  compensation.  The  men 
were  continually  complaining  against  the  women.  In 
fifteenth  century  Germany  children  born  out  of  wedlock 
were  frequent,  growing  up  in  their  father's  house  along 
with  their  half  brothers  and  sisters;  and  for  a  long  time 
no  disgrace  attached.  Why  should  it  in  bourgeois  cir- 
cles, where  there  was  no  noble  estate  to  be  conserved?^' 

In  the  fifteenth  century,  with  improved  hygienic  con- 
ditions and  favorable  material  conditions,  there  were, 
not  uncommonly,  families  of  twelve,  fifteen,  or  even 
more  children.  A  chronicle  gives  the  city  of  Erfurt  an 
average  of  eight  to  ten  children  per  family.  Idealism 
was  not  wanting.  Albrecht  von  Eyb,  in  his  treatise 
Whether  a  man  ought  to  take  a  wife  or  not,  printed  in 
1472,  seems  to  speak  for  the  Germany  of  his  day  when 
he  says : 

Marriage  is  a  useful  wholesome  thing:  by  it  many  a  conflict  and 

13  See  Richard,  History  of  German  Civilization,  224;  KuUurgeschichte  des 
Mittelalters,  573-574. 


Old  World  Origins  21 

war  is  quieted,  relationship  and  good  friendship  formed,  and  the 
whole  human  race  perpetuated.  Matrimony  is  also  a  merr)% 
pleasurable,  and  sweet  thing.  What  is  merrier  and  sweeter 
than  the  names  of  father  and  mother  and  the  children  hanging 
on  their  parents'  necks?  If  married  people  have  the  right  love 
and  the  right  will  for  one  another,  their  joy  and  sorrow  are 
common  to  them  and  they  enjoy  the  good  things  the  more  mer- 
rily and  bear  the  adverse  things  the  more  easily. 

Yet  the  position  of  woman  was  not  high:  her  sphere, 
was  the  home,  and  she  was  seldom  mentioned. 

The  Protestant  Revolution  changed  markedly  the  old  ' 
order  of  life.  The  movement  that  is  known  as  the 
Reformation  had  a  strong  economic  element."  It  sig- 
nified the  rise  to  power  of  a  new  sovereign -the  indus- 
trial, mercantile,  commercial  middle-class -which  had 
long  been  falling  heir  to  the  power  slipping  from  the 
hands  of  a  decadent  feudal  aristocracy.  Since  the 
Reformation,  the  moneyed  type  has  dominated  the 
world. 

Where  this  economic  class  was  not  strong  enough,  the 
Reformation  proved  abortive  and  spelled  tragedy  to  the 
families  that  accepted  it.  Thus,  in  France,  the  Hugue- 
nots were  forbidden  to  train  their  children  in  the  faith. 
A  royal  decree  in  1685  required  that  every  child  of  five 
years  and  over  be  removed  by  the  authorities  from  his 
Protestant  parents.  Protestant  marriages  were  illegal 
and  the  offspring  illegitimate.  Girls  were  carried  away 
to  shame  and  parents  had  no  power  to  interfere.  Co- 
ligny  was  at  first  reluctant  to  publish  his  faith  because 
of  the  suffering  that  would  be  entailed  on  his  wife  and 
household;  but  she  preferred  to  be  bold,  so  he  avowed 

^*  Adams.  Laijj  of  Civilization  and  Decay,  187-208;  Patten.  Develop- 
ment of  English  Thought,  102-105,  117;  Forrest.  Development  of  JVestern 
Civilization,  291-298  ;  Stille.  Studies  in  Medieval  History,  443-445 ;  Traill  and 
Mann.  Social  England,  vol.  iii,  59 ;  Pollard.  Factors  in  Modern  History,  46- 
50;    Seignobos.  History  of  Medieval  and  Modern  Civilization,  283,  290-292. 


22         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

his  religion  and  held  worship  daily  in  his  family.  Not 
all  families  in  the  riven  lands  enjoyed  such  unison. 

An  understanding  of  the  significance  of  this  great 
social  revolution  is  essential,  both  on  account  of  its  gen- 
eral influence  on  the  European  institutions  from  which 
our  civilization  is  derived  and  from  the  fact  that  it  was 
this  revolutionary  middle-class,  stern,  sober,  prudential, 
industrial,  driven  into  exile  by  temporary  triumphs  of 
reaction  or  coming  freely  in  pursuit  of  opportunity  and 
economic  gain,  that  made  America. 

Feudal  militancy  had  subordinated  family  life  to  the 
afifairs  of  war.  With  the  passing  of  the  old  chivalric 
notions  a  good  deal  of  false  sentiment  died  away  and 
the  attitude  of  men  toward  women  was  markedly  al- 
tered. The  Reformation  developed  a  rather  matter-of- 
fact  view.  The  bourgeoisie  may  well  claim  the  honor 
of  being  first  to  assert  that  romantic  love  is  the  ideal 
basis  of  marriage;  but  the  constraints  of  private  wealth 
have  always  operated  to  frustrate  this  ideal.  Though 
suppression  of  convents  curtailed  woman's  opportunity, 
the  Reformation  did  remove  the  stain  put  on  marriage 
and  the  family  by  the  law  of  celibacy.  Celibates  began 
to  marry.  Luther,  by  word  and  example,  glorified  mar- 
riage and  the  family.  He  said:  "O!  what  a  great  rich 
and  magnificent  blessing  there  is  in  the  married  state; 
what  joy  is  shown  to  man  in  matrimony  by  his  descend- 
ants!"^^ His  recognition  of  the  normal  sex  impulse 
to  propagation  appears  in  this  utterance:  "Unless 
specially  endowed  by  a  rare,  divine  grace,  a  woman  can 
no  more  dispense  with  a  man,  than  .  .  .  with  food, 
drink,  sleep,  and  other  natural  needs.  In  the  same  way 
a  man  cannot  do  without  a  woman."  ^* 

15  Richard.  History  of  German  Civilization,  253-255 ;  Painter.  Luther  on 
Education,   113-116. 

16  Bebel.     Woman  and  Socialism,  78. 


Old  World  Origins  23 

Luther  gave  woman  no  chivalric  admiration;  yet, 
while  emphasizing  motherhood,  he  did  not  regard 
woman  as  a  mere  bearer  of  children.  Marriage  sig- 
nified to  him  the  moral  restraint  and  religious  sanctifi- 
cation  of  natural  impulse.  None  should  marry  unless 
competent  to  instruct  their  children  in  the  elements  of 
religion.  He  emphasized  the  nurture  of  children, 
stressing  honor  to  parents  and  reverence  to  God  and 
making  no  distinction  between  boys  and  girls  as  to  need 
of  education  nor  between  men  and  women  as  to  right  to 
teach.  Home  should  be  made  a  delight  but  firmness 
must  not  be  sacrificed.  According  to  him  the  wife's 
union  to  the  husband  is  a  fit  symbol  of  the  soul's  union 
to  Christ  by  faith.  Whatever  Christ  possesses,  the  be- 
lieving soul  may  claim  as  its  own." 

It  might  be  supposed  that  such  liberal  views,  coming 
at  a  time  when  society  thrilled  with  the  longing  to  estab- 
lish more  firmly  the  individual  personality  by  means  of 
marriage  and  family  life,  would  mean  an  era  of  eman- 
cipation for  woman.  But  this  did  not  immediately  fol- 
low. The  reformers  did  not  recognize  woman  as  in  all 
points  equal  to  man.  "Let  woman  learn  betimes  to  , 
serve  according  to  her  lot"  was  their  opinion.  She  was 
to  be  trained  to  faith  and  for  the  calling  of  housewife 
and  mother.  The  home  under  the  Reformation  con- 
tinued under  the  old  laws.  Woman  was  to  be  under  • 
obedience  to  the  male  head.  She  was  to  be  constantly 
employed  for  his  benefit.  He  chose  her  society,  for  he 
was  responsible  for  her,  and  to  him  as  a  sort  of  Father 
Confessor  she  was  accountable.  Neither  talent  nor  . 
genius  could  emancipate  her  without  his  consent.  At 
about  the  time  of  the  Reformation  it  was  said,  "She  that 

^^  Compare  Scherr,  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Frauenivelf,  Band  ii,  19-21; 
Vedder,  Reformation  in  Germany,  124;  Cooke,  IVoman  in  the  Progress  of 
Civilization,  358-359;  Painter,  Luther  on  Education,  chapter  vi. 


24         The  American  Family  —  Colonial  Period 

knoweth  how  to  compound  a  pudding  is  more  desirable 
than  she  who  skillfully  compoundeth  a  poem."  It  was 
the  maxim  of  Luther  that  "no  gown  or  garment  worse 
become  a  woman  than  that  she  will  be  wise."  Aboli- 
tion of  convents  brought  a  period  of  two  or  three  cen- 
turies in  northern  lands  during  which  the  intellectual 
training  of  women  largely  ceased.  Luther  pictures  the 
real  German  housewife -a  pious,  God-fearing  woman, 
domestic  toiler,  comforter  of  man,  a  rare  treasure- 
trustworthy,  loving,  industrious,  beneficent,  blessed. 
"When  a  woman  walks  in  obedience  toward  God,"  says 
Luther,  "holds  her  husband  in  love  and  esteem,  and 
brings  up  her  children  well -in  comparison  with  such 
ornament,  pearls,  velvet,  and  tinsel  are  like  an  old,  torn, 
patched,  beggar's  cloak."  It  is  evident  that  the  faith- 
ful, unobtrusive,  industrious  German  Hausfrau  is  the 
ideal  woman  of  the  Reformation.^* 

The  reformers  had  large  problems  to  solve.  The 
Reformation  spelled  individualism  and  the  decay  of 
the  modern  family  can  be  traced  back  to  this  source. 
The  reformers  were  not  fundamentally  to  blame.  Mar- 
riage had  been  regarded  in  Germany  as  a  civil  contract, 
yet  mystical  elements  were  present  such  as  the  notion 
that  marriage  would  purge  away  crime,  in  consequence 
of  which  view  felons  condemned  to  death  would  be  re- 
leased if  some  one  would  marry  them."  At  the  time  of 
the  Reformation  there  was  growing  up  a  church  theory 
which  treated  unblest  marriages  as  concubinage.^"  Con- 
fusion arose  from  prevalent  usage.  It  became  custom- 
ary in  one  town  for  betrothed  to  live  together  before 

18  Compare  Scherr,  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Frauenivelt,  Band  ii,  22-23  I 
Otto,  Deutsches  Frauenleben,  94;  Gage,  Woman,  Church,  and  State,  146-147; 
Cooke,  Woman  in  the  Progress  of  Civilization,  chapter  iv,  47. 

18  Baring-Gould.     Germany,  Present  and  Past,  vol.  i,  159,  162,  163. 

20—  Idem. 


Old  World  Origins  25 

marriage.  The  consistory  held  such  cohabitation  to  be 
true  marriage.    Luther  wrote, 

It  has  often  fallen  out  that  a  married  pair  came  for  me,  and 
that  one  or  both  had  already  been  secretly  betrothed  to  another: 
then  there  was  a  case  of  distress  and  perplexity  and  we  confess- 
ors and  theologians  were  expected  to  give  counsel  to  those  tor- 
tured consciences.     But  how  could  we?  ^^ 

Luther  had  slight  thought  of  human  interdependence. 
He  looked  at  morals  in  a  superficial  way,  as  scarcely 
more  than  a  department  of  politics  belonging  to  the 
care  of  the  state.  Consequently  he  followed  the  secular 
theory  of  marriage.     He  said, 

Know  that  marriage  is  something  extrinsic  as  any  other  worldly 
action.  As  I  may  eat,  drink,  sleep,  walk,  ride,  and  deal  with 
any  heathen,  Jew,  Turk,  or  heretic,  so  to  one  of  these  I  may 
also  become  and  remain  married.  Do  not  observe  the  laws  of 
fools  that  forbid  such  marriages.  In  regard  to  matters  of  mar- 
riage and  divorce  ...  let  them  be  subject  to  worldly  rule  y 
since  marriage  is  a  worldly  extrinsic  thing.^^ 

Of  course  Luther  desired  that  the  civil  authority  should 
be  "pious."  But  not  till  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury was  religious  ceremony  considered  necessary  to 
legal  marriage  among  Protestants.  Till  then  "con- 
science [common-law]  marriage"  sufficed."  Luther 
and  other  reformers  also  opposed  restrictions  to  mar- 
riage. 

For  a  time  the  new  era  threatened  to  return  to  pagan 
laxity  and  licentiousness.  The  reformers  did  not  al- 
ways avoid  immorality  in  their  loose  handling  of  mar- 
riage.    For  instance,  Luther  says. 

If  a  healthy  woman  is  joined  in  wedlock  to  an  impotent  man 
and  could  not,  nor  would  for  her  honor's  sake  openly  choose 

21  Baring-Gould.     Germany,  Present  and  Past,  vol.  i,  147,  154. 

22  Bebel.     Woman  and  Socialism,  78-79. 

23  — .  Idem,  79. 


26         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

another,  she  should  speak  to  her  husband  thus:  "See,  my  dear 
husband,  thou  hast  deceived  me  and  my  young  body  and  en- 
dangered my  honor  and  salvation ;  before  God  there  is  no  honor 
bet\veen  us.  Suffer  that  I  maintain  secret  marriage  with  thy 
brother  or  closest  friend  while  thou  remainest  my  husband  in 
name.  That  thy  property  may  not  fall  heir  to  strangers;  wil- 
lingly be  deceived  by  me  as  you  have  unwillingly  deceived  me." 

The  husband  should  consent.  If  he  refuses,  she  has  a 
right  to  leave  him,  go  elsewhere,  and  remarry.  Simi- 
larly, if  a  woman  will  not  perform  her  conjugal  duty, 
the  husband  has  the  right  to  get  another  woman,  after 
telling  his  wife  his  intention.^* 

Of  course  the  author  of  such  views  was  in  favor  of 
permitting  divorcees  to  remarry.  He  even  sanctioned 
bigamy.  ''I  confess,"  he  says,  "for  my  part  that  if  a  man 
wishes  to  marry  two  or  more  wives,  I  cannot  forbid  him, 
nor  is  his  conduct  repugnant  to  the  Holy  Scriptures." 
Melanchthon  advised  Henry  VHI.  to  commit  bigamy 
rather  than  divorce  Catherine.  He  and  Luther,  as  a 
matter  of  shrewd  politics,  connived  in  the  disgraceful 
bigamy  of  Philip  of  Hesse.  Luther  forgot  all  honesty 
in  trying  to  cover  the  trail  of  this  infamy,  which  he  was 
unwilling  for  the  "coarse  peasants"  to  imitate.  Catho- 
lics could  well  say,  "Behold  the  fruits  of  the  Reforma- 
tion!" Kolde  says,  "It  is  highly  probable  that  the  be- 
ginning of  the  decline  of  Protestantism  as  a  political 
power  coincides  with  the  marriage  of  the  Prince  of 
Hesse."" 

Such  laxity  as  the  reformers  exhibited  correlates  with 
the  economic  basis  of  the  Protestant  Revolution.  Un- 
like feudal  landed  estates,  bourgeois  personalty  was  not 
especially  appropriate  to  concentrated  hereditary  trans- 

2*  On  Luther's  radicalism,  see  idem,  79-80. 

25  On  Luther  and  biganny,  see  Gage,  IVoman,  Church,  and  State,  399; 
Vedder,  Reformation  in  Germany,  350-355. 


Old  World  Origins  27 

mission,  as  its  items  were  transient  and  indefinitely  in- 
creasable.  Primogeniture,  and  even  a  closely  restricted 
progeny,  were  no  longer  necessary  to  the  perpetuation 
of  class  domination.  The  economic  reason  for  the  ir- 
refragable feudal  marriage  was  gone.  Divorce  found 
a  lodgment  in  bourgeois  theory  and  practice.  As  we 
have  seen,  a  certain  recognition  began  to  be  bestowed 
on  illegitimates.  As  under  Roman  law,  subsequent 
marriage  of  parents  became  a  means  of  legitimizing 
them.'^ 

It  is  not  to  be  assumed  that  sex  life  in  the  Reforma- 
tion period  was  purer  than  ordinary.  The  code  of 
Charles  V.  was  severe  against  sexual  transgression  and 
the  sharp  penalties  denounced  upon  seduction,  adultery, 
incest,  unnatural  lust,  abortion,  infanticide,  etc.  indi- 
cate the  prevalence  of  these  practices.  Court  records  of 
the  sixteenth  century  afford  confirmatory  evidence. 
The  Protestant  clergy  declaimed  zealously  against  sex- 
ual excess.  Prostitutes  were  harassed  and  "fallen" 
women  were  relentlessly  persecuted. 

The  Reformation  was  not  in  all  particulars  so  radical 
as  in  its  handling  of  the  sex  relation.  For  instance, 
Luther  kept  children  within  the  pale  of  collective  re- 
ligion by  accepting  the  view  that  faith  of  sponsors  suf- 
fices for  infants  in  baptism.  It  was  left  for  more  thoro- 
going  sectaries  to  apply  individualism  to  this  rite  also 
and  abolish  the  baptism  of  infants. 

In  so  short  a  space  as  can  be  given  to  this  initial  chap- 
ter it  is  impossible  to  harmonize  all  seeming  contradic- 
tions in  medieval  and  early  modern  sex  and  family  life 
or  to  give  an  adequate  perspective.  It  may  suffice  to 
remember  that  out  of  medieval  confusion  of  thought 
and  practice,  out  of  a  feudal  society  of  class  privilege 

28  Meily.     Puritanism,  57-58. 


28         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

and  exploitation,  arose  by  economic  process  a  new  social 
order  which  stressed  the  individual  and  his  freedom 
and  revolved  around  industry  and  commerce  rather 
than  around  land  ownership.  This  change  of  economic 
base  demanded  a  revolution  in  thought  and  morals  and 
new  standards  evolved  to  meet  the  emergency.  A  sur- 
vey of  England  in  this  period  of  transition  leads  to  the 
threshold  of  American  colonization. 


II.    OLD  WORLD  ORIGINS-SPECIFIC 
SOURCES" 

The  Paston  Letters  introduce  us  to  fifteenth  century 
England.  In  them  marriage  seems  to  be  in  the  main  a 
matter  of  mercenary  calculation  and  withal  the  chief 
business  of  family  life.  A  girl  informs  her  suitor  how 
much  her  father  will  give  her;  if  the  amount  is  unsatis- 
factory he  must  cease  his  suit.  When  Margaret  made 
a  love  match  with  a  servant  in  the  family  her  mother 
cut  her  ofif  from  inheritance  tho  she  did  leave  twenty 
pounds  to  her  grandson  by  this  marriage.  John  Paston 
sometimes  had  two  matrimonial  projects  on  hand  at 
once.  After  seeking  his  brother's  advice  in  a  number 
of  cases  he  finally  made  a  love  match  with  an  ardent 
young  lady  whose  mother  was  favorable  but  whose 
father's  economic  sense  made  him  hard  to  satisfy.  One 
precocious  youth  begs  his  brother  for  help  in  wooing  a 
young  lady.  "The  age  of  her  is  by  all  likelihood  eigh- 
teen or  nineteen  at  the  furthest.  And  as  for  the  money 
and  plate,  it  is  ready  whensoever  she  were  wedded,  and 
as  for  her  beauty  judge  you  that  when  you  see  her,  and 
specially  behold  her  hands." 

Kindly  feelings  were  not  wanting.  Marital  relations 
seem  to  have  been  comfortable.  There  were  close  rela- 
tions between  brothers  and  when  one  Paston  married, 
his  mother  wrote  her  husband  to  buy  the  new  daughter 
a  gown  "goodly  blue"  or  "bright  sanguine."  The  rear- 
ing of  children  and  their  start  in  life  were  matters  of 
grave  concern.    Judge  Paston's  marriageable  daughter 

27  Compare  Goodsell,  History  of  the  Family,  chapter  ix. 


30         The  American  Family  — Colonial  Period 

was  generally  beaten  once  or  twice  a  week  by  her 
mother,  sometimes  twice  in  one  day,  and  her  head  was 
broken  in  two  or  three  places.  When  her  brother  aged 
sixteen  was  in  school  at  London  the  mother  sent  instruc- 
tions for  the  master  as  follows,  "If  he  hath  nought  do 
well,  nor  wyll  nought  amend,  pray  hym  that  he  wyll 
trewly  belassch  hym,  tyll  he  wyll  amend;  and  so  did  the 
last  master,  and  the  best  that  ever  he  had,  at  Cam- 
bridge." Such  stringencies  shadow  the  bright  episodes 
of  Paston  affairs.  The  ill-treated  daughter  was  anxious 
for  a  husband  as  refuge  from  maternal  tyranny.  Doubt- 
less many  an  English  maid  felt  like  eagerness,  for  bru- 
tality seems  to  have  been  usual  with  British  matrons  in 
high  life.  Elizabeth  Tanfield  (1585-1639),  Lady  Falk- 
land, while  speaking  to  her  mother  always  knelt  before 
her. 

The  Tudor  age  found  England  busy  with  foreign 
enterprises,  discovery  of  new  worlds,  commerce,  trade - 
building  up  a  solid  basis  of  wealth  and  progress -ab- 
sorption in  economic  and  intellectual  activities  that  left 
no  time  for  "chivalry."  The  man  ushered  in  by  the 
revolution  we  have  already  traced  was  the  modern  ap- 
proximation of  the  "economic  man" -a  type  to  whose 
senses  women  make  a  relatively  mild  appeal.  The  men 
of  the  sixteenth  century  were  somewhat  of  modern  men 
and  regarded  woman  as  a  participant  in  the  burdens 
and  pleasures  of  life,  not  a  being  to  be  worshiped  or 
shunned. 

English  women  enjoyed  rather  more  freedom  than 
some  of  their  continental  sisters.  A  Dutchman  of  the 
sixteenth  century  writes  to  that  effect  concerning  wives, 
noting  also  their  fondness  for  dress  and  ease.  He  adds: 
"England  is  called  the  paradise  of  married  women. 
The  girls  who  are  not  yet  married  are  kept  much  more 


Old  World  Origins-Specific  Sources  31 

rigorously  and  strictly  than  in  the  Low  Countries." 
The  Duke  of  Wirtemberg  who  was  in  England  about 
1592  remarked  on  the  great  liberty  accorded  women 
and  recorded  their  fondness  for  finery;  so  "that,  as  I  am 
informed,  many  a  one  does  not  hesitate  to  wear  velvet  in 
the  street,  which  is  common  with  them,  whilst  at  home 
perhaps  they  have  not  a  piece  of  dry  bread."  One  ob- 
server says,  "The  females  have  great  liberty  and  are  al- 
most like  masters."  ^^ 

Foreign  observers  tend  to  confine  their  attention  to 
the  middle  and  upper  classes.  The  condition  of  the 
lower  class,  nevertheless,  is  of  equal  importance  at  least. 
Europe  had  been  slipping  toward  the  starvation  point. 
Firewood  was  becoming  a  luxury  in  many  parts  of 
western  Europe.  Especially  in  England  had  the  price 
of  building  materials  risen  to  what  seemed  a  very  high 
point.  Vagabondage  was  repeatedly  the  subject  of 
cruel  legislation.  Any  one  might  take  the  children  of 
vagabonds  and  keep  them  as  apprentices.  In  Henry 
VIII. 's  day  the  culture  of  wool  had  desolated  many 
homes.  In  order  to  extend  pasturage  greedy  men  re- 
sorted to  force  and  fraud  and  ejected  the  husbandmen, 
occasioning  thereby  poverty,  misery,  and  crime  among 
those  deprived  of  employment. 

By  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century,  castle  architec- 
ture was  being  superseded.  Even  in  the  fourteenth  and 
fifteenth  centuries  domestic  arrangements  had  shown  a 
tendency  to  improve.  There  was  more  desire  for  pri- 
vacy. The  sixteenth  century  revolutionized  domestic 
architecture.  Dissolution  of  the  monasteries  threw 
property  into  hands  concerned  more  with  pleasure  than 
with  defense. 

28  Traill  and  Mann.  Social  England,  vol.  iii,  785-786;  Hill.  Women  in 
English  Life,  vol.  i,  115-118. 


32         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

In  Elizabethan  England  peasant  cottages  usually  had 
but  two  rooms,  one  for  the  servants,  the  other  for  the 
family.  Substantial  farmers  had  houses  with  several 
rooms.  For  some  time  housing  had  been  a  problem  in 
London.  The  crowded  condition  of  the  city  made  it  an 
unpleasant  abode.  Vacated  palaces  were  transformed 
into  tenements  that  would  hold  a  score  or  more  of  fam- 
ilies. Elizabeth  issued  an  edict  against  the  housing  of 
different  families  in  the  same  building  but  the  proc- 
lamation was  of  course  mainly  futile.  Even  the  people 
of  the  better  class  seem  to  have  had  no  notion  of  privacy 
of  daily  home  life.  Rooms  opened  into  one  another. 
Often  half  a  dozen  rooms  were  so  connected  that  some 
of  them  could  be  reached  only  by  passing  through  sev- 
eral or  all  of  the  others.  This  was  the  case  even  with 
bedrooms.  Frequently  a  large  room  was  converted 
into  several  sleeping  quarters  by  means  of  curtains. 

The  lure  of  the  city  was  already  felt.  People  flocked 
to  London  and  wasted  their  substance  in  revels. 

When  husband  hath  at  play  set  up  his  rest, 
Then  wife  and  babes  at  home  a  hungry  goeth. 

The  master  may  keep  revel  all  the  year, 
And  leave  the  vv'ife  at  home  like  silly  fool. 

It  seems  that  country  dames  did  not  often  share  their 
husbands'  trips  to  the  capital.  The  wife  of  the  city 
burgess  also  found  ample  employment  in  looking  after 
the  multitudinous  duties  of  her  household.  Little  at- 
tention was  given  to  improving  the  education  of  women 
of  the  middle  class.  Sir  Thomas  Overbury's  poem, 
"A  Wife,"  expresses  the  sentiment  of  the  age: 

Give  me  next  good,  an  understanding  wife, 
By  nature  wise,  not  learned  much  by  art. 


Old  World  Origins -Specific  Sources  33 

Some  knowledge  on  her  part  will  all  my  life 
More  scope  of  conversation  impart. 

A  passive  understanding  to  conceive, 
And  judgment  to  discern  I  wish  to  find. 

Beyond  that  all  as  hazardous  I  leave ; 

Learning  and  pregnant  wit  in  woman-kind, 

What  it  finds  malleable  maketh  frail, 

And  doth  not  add  more  ballast  but  more  sail. 

Domestic  charge  doth  best  that  sexe  befit, 
Contiguous  businesse  so  to  fix  the  minde, 

That  leisure  space  for  fancies  not  admit, 
Their  leisure  'tis  corrupteth  womankinde. 

Else,  being  placed  from  many  vices  free. 

They  had  to  heaven  a  shorter  cut  than  we. 

Books  are  a  part  of  man's  Prerogatives     .     .     • 

In  the  words  of  Gervase  Markham  [died  1637]  also^ 
appears  the  ideal  for  the  English  housewife: 

Next  unto  her  sanctity  and  holiness  of  life,  it  is  meet  that 
our  English  housewife  be  a  woman  of  great  modesty  and  tem- 
perance, as  well  inwardly  as  outwardly;  inwardly  as  in  her  be- 
havior and  carriage  towards  her  husband,  wherein  she  shall 
shun  all  violence  of  rage,  passion,  and  humour,  coveting  less  to 
direct  than  to  be  directed,  appearing  ever  unto  him  pleasant, 
amiable  and  delightful ;  and,  tho'  occasions  of  mishaps,  or  the 
misgovernment  of  his  will  may  induce  her  to  contrary  thoughts, 
yet  virtuously  to  suppress  them,  and  with  a  mild  sufferance 
rather  to  call  him  home  from  his  error,  than  with  the  strength 
of  anger  to  abate  the  least  spark  of  his  evil,  calling  into  her 
mind,  that  evil  and  uncomely  language  is  deformed,  tho  uttered 
even  to  servants;  but  most  monstrous  and  ugly  when  it  appears 
before  the  presence  of  a  husband ;  outwardly  as  in  her  apparel 
and  diet,  both  of  which  she  shall  proportion  according  to  the 
competency  of  her  husband's  estate  and  calling,  making  her 
circle  rather  straight  than  large. 

She  should  avoid  fantastic  fashions  and  remember  that 


34         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

diet  should  be  nutritive  rather  than  epicurish.  He  says 
the  housewife  ought  to  understand  medicine  and  nurs- 
ing, cookery,  gardening,  care  of  poultry,  making  of  but- 
ter and  cheese,  cutting  up  of  meat,  distilling,  and  the 
care  of  wool  and  flax.  The  average  Elizabethan  house- 
wife was  proficient  in  all  these  duties.  Even  if  she  did 
not  have  to  perform  them  it  was  often  necessary  to  train 
household  servants.  Their  numerous  retinue  consti- 
tuted a  veritable  familia-z  burden  of  responsibility  to 
mistress  and  master.  For  instance,  John  Harrington  in 
1566  drew  up  rules  for  his  servants  requiring  them 
among  other  things  to  attend  family  prayers  under  pen- 
alty of  two  pence  fine. 

With  the  passing  of  convent  life  marriage  was  more 
essential  to  woman  than  ever.  There  were  not  hus- 
bands enough  to  go  round.  Girls  that  failed  to  find 
mates  had  a  dark  outlook -perhaps  as  drudges  for  their 
relatives.  For  an  old  maid  the  Elizabethans  could 
think  of  no  better  employment  than  "to  lead  apes  in 
hell;"^^  so  a  younger  sister  was  rarely  permitted  to 
marry  first.  Girls  married  very  young;  unmarried 
daughters  were  undesirable  members  of  the  household. 
A  poet  makes  a  girl  of  fifteen  lament  that  she  has  not 
found  a  husband ;  and  he  was  probably  not  exaggerating. 
Fifteen  or  sixteen  was  a  common  age  for  marriage  in 
Shakespeare's  day.  The  maiden  of  twenty  was  regard- 
ed as  a  confirmed  spinster.  Sometimes  girls  were  mar- 
ried so  young  that  it  was  necessary  to  wait  several  years 
before  they  were  old  enough  for  actual  wives.  This 
may  have  been  shrewd  business  but  much  immorality 
resulted  from  this  child-marriage  common  in  fashion- 
able life. 

29  Compare  Katherine  in  Shakespeare,  "Taming  of  the  Shrew,"  act  ii, 
scene  i. 


Old  World  Origins  -  Specific  Sources  35 

Courtship  in  the  England  of  Elizabeth  was  bolder 
and  ruder  than  to-day.  It  was,  however,  improper  to 
propose  to  the  girl  before  obtaining  the  parents'  consent 
and  as  often  as  not  it  was  they  that  conveyed  the  pro- 
posal to  the  girl.  Old  plays  contain  more  references  to 
the  necessity  of  the  lover's  trying  to  win  the  mother's 
aid  than  the  father's.  A  girl  rarely  dared,  however, 
withstand  the  father's  will  for  a  marriage,  and  few 
lovers  would  risk  the  loss  of  a  marriage  portion  through 
failure  to  obtain  paternal  assent  to  their  suit.  Lyly 
presents  the  situation  vividly  in  these  words : 

Parents  in  these  days  are  grown  peevish,  they  rock  their  chil- 
dren in  their  cradles  till  they  sleep,  and  cross  them  about  their 
bridals  until  their  hearts  ache.  Marriage  among  them  has  be- 
come a  market.  What  will  you  give  with  your  daughter? 
What  jointure  will  you  make  for  your  son?  And  many  a  match 
is  broken  off  for  a  penny  more  or  less,  as  tho  they  could  not 
afford  their  children  at  such  a  price ;  when  none  should  cheapen 
such  ware  but  affection,  and  none  buy  it  but  love.  .  .  Our 
parents  .  .  .  give  us  pap  with  a  spoon  before  we  can  speak, 
and  when  we  speak  for  that  we  love,  pap  with  a  hatchet. 

He  adds,  "I  shall  measure  my  love  by  mine  own 
judgment,  not  my  father's  purse  or  peevishness.  Nature 
hath  made  me  his  child  not  his  slave."  The  Elizabethan 
girl  that  opposed  her  father's  choice  was  indeed  treated 
like  a  slave.  "Romeo  and  Juliet"  and  the  "Two  Gen- 
tlemen of  Verona"  reflect  this  fact  and  Ophelia's  im- 
plicit acquiescence  in  her  father's  despotism  shows 
what  was  expected  of  a  well-bred  English  girl  in  Shake- 
speare's day. 

Ceremonial  betrothal  often  preceded  marriage.  It 
took  place  before  a  responsible  witness,  preferably  a 
priest.  After  the  ceremony  the  terms  husband  and 
wife  could  be  applied  and  possibly  the  privilege  of  the 


36         The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

marriage  bed  might  be  enjoyed.     A  like  usage  will  be 
noted  in  the  American  colonies. 

In  a  way  children  seem  to  have  been  esteemed  in  six- 
teenth century  England.  Bonfires  were  often  built  in 
celebration  of  a  wife's  pregnancy.  Births  were  cele- 
brated similarly  and  by  other  public  rejoicing.  But 
children  among  all  classes  were  treated  with  severity. 
A  Venetian  noble  who  accompanied  an  ambassador 
from  Venice  to  the  English  court  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury wrote: 

The  want  of  affection  in  the  English  is  strongly  manifested 
toward  their  children [,]  for  having  kept  them  at  home  till  they 
arrive  at  the  age  of  seven  or  nine  years,  they  put  them  out,  both 
males  and  females  to  hard  service  in  the  homes  of  other  people, 
binding  them  generally  for  another  seven  or  nine  years.  And 
these  are  called  apprentices,  and  during  that  time  they  perform 
all  the  most  menial  offices;  and  few  are  born  who  are  exempted 
from  this  fate,  for  every  one,  however  rich  he  may  be,  sends 
away  his  children  into  the  homes  of  others;  whilst  he  in  return 
receives  those  of  strangers  into  his  own. 

This  sounds  like  a  rigid  system  yet  \\t  find  children 
described  as  "most  ongracious  graflftes,  ripe  and  ready 
in  all  lewd  libertie"  through  the  fault  of  the  parents 
and  schoolmasters  "which  do  nother  teach  their  chil- 
dren good,  nother  yet  chasten  them  when  they  do  evill." 
Between  the  Reformation  and  the  Civil  War  lay  a  cen- 
tury of  peace.  Men  had  time  to  know  their  children. 
Little  ones  figure  prettily  in  memoirs,  letters,  and  art. 
These  children  seem  to  have  led  happy  lives  for  the 
most  part. 

In  the  seventeenth  century,  people  looking  back  re- 
gretted the  passing  of  the  time  when  daughters  were 
obsequious  and  serviceable,  when 

There  was  no  supposed  humiliation  in  offices  which  are  now  ac- 
counted menial,  but  which  the  peer  received  as  a  matter  of 


Old  World  Origins -Specific  Sources  37 

course  from  the  gentlemen  of  his  household,  and  which  were 
paid  to  the  knights  and  gentlemen  by  domestics  chosen  in  the 
families  of  their  own  most  respectable  tenants;  whilst  in  the 
humbler  ranks  of  middle  life  it  was  the  uniform  and  recognized 
duty  of  the  wife  to  wait  on  her  husband,  the  child  on  his 
parents,  the  youngest  of  the  family  on  his  elder  brothers  and 
sisters.^** 

With  the  seventeenth  century  and  the  Puritan  move-' 
ment  we  come  to  the  immediate  sources  of  New  Eng- 
land family  institutions.  It  is  particularly  to  the  tradi- 
tions and  standards  of  the  middle  class,  especially  of  the 
Puritan  type,  that  we  must  look  for  the  genesis  of  north- 
ern colonial  life.  Moreover  in  the  southern  colonies 
this  class  was  stronger  and  the  "cream  of  society"  was 
weaker  than  southerners  of  aristocratic  tastes  like  to  ad- 
mit. The  New  World  environment,  too,  favored  the 
standards  of  the  middle  class  from  which  the  immi- 
grants came.  This  concurrence  of  geographic  and  so- 
cial influences  gives  us  our  distinctive  civilization.  Our 
modern  ideal  of  monogamy  with  equality  and  mutuality 
is  not  of  aristocratic  lineage.  It  comes  up  apparently 
from  the  "lower"  classes  where  econotnic  conditions 
forbade  polygamic  connections.  Sumner  says:  "It  is 
the  system  of  the  urban-middle-capitalist  class.  .  . 
In  the  old  countries  the  mores  of  the  middle  class  have 
come  into  conflict  with  the  mores  of  peasants  and  nobles. 
The  former  have  steadily  won."^^  Naturally  so  inas- 
much as  this  bourgeoisie,  drawing  into  itself  the  more 
enterprising  sons  of  the  peasantry  and  grasping  the 
power  that  economic  change  wrested  from  the  nobility, 
has  dominated  modern  society. 

Puritanism  was  an  economic  phenomenon. ^^    The  in- 

30  Hill.     Women  in  English  Life,  vol.  i,  125. 

31  Sumner.     Folkways,  375-376. 

32  Compare  Parce,  Economic  Determinism,  98,  102,  no;  Patten,  Develop- 
ment of  English  Thought,  81-98,   124-134;   Meily,  Puritanism,  chapter  iil. 


o  . 


38         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

fluence  of  the  Renaissance  had  spread  a  belief  in  the 
pleasures  of  this  world  and  a  regard  for  the  life  of  the 
flesh  as  good  in  itself.  Such  a  view  is  the  spiritual  re- 
flection of  the  increased  comfort  and  plenty  arising 
from  even  the  limited  economic  progress  of  the  middle 
ages.  The  inventions  and  changes  of  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury made  indoor  life  less  barren  and  more  agreeable 
and  a  new  type  of  man  was  the  result- a  man  that  dis- 
liked the  open  country  and  became  attached  to  home. 
Elizabeth  introduced  many  new  food  plants  from  Italy. 
Domestic  comfort  began  to  enter  the  homes  of  the  poor. 
They  began  to  provide  their  cottages  with  chimneys. 
The  use  of  window  glass  spread  and  pillows  appeared 
on  the  beds  of  the  common  people.  The  new  conditions 
made  real  family  life  possible.  The  home  became  the 
center  of  pleasurable  activities.  To  have  a  wife  a  home- 
maker -one  that  could  change  into  comforts  the  neces- 
sities that  man  produced -was  so  much  the  more  de- 
sirable. 

Under  earlier  conditions  enjoyment  had  been  sought 
in  group  festivities,  which  were  likely  to  be  unrestrained 
and  licentious.  The  development  of  the  modern  home 
caused  a  divide  in  social  life  and  gave  those  that  were  so 
disposed  a  more  refined  way  of  satisfying  their  desire 
for  pleasure.  Those  in  whom  the  bonds  of  morality 
and  the  ties  of  family  life  were  strongest  gradually  with- 
drew from  the  coarser  community  revelry.  The  Protes- 
tant Reformers  extolled  family  life  and  denounced  com- 
munal pleasures,  attributing  their  moral  degeneration 
to  the  Catholic  church.  New  economic  conditions  with 
their  numerous  luxuries  offered  a  strong  temptation  to 
depart  from  ancestral  simplicity  and  brought  about  a 
market  for  indulgences  among  those  that  desired  to 
reconcile  their  moral  feelings  with  conflicting  economic 


Old  World  Origins -Specific  Sources  39 

tendencies.  The  bettering  of  economic  conditions  in 
the  fifteenth  century  had,  then,  increased  the  evils  of 
communal  pleasures  and  also  strengthened  and  intensi- 
fied family  life.  Europe  was  at  the  parting  of  the  ways. 
The  "Puritan"  was  ready  for  a  moral  crusade  against  >. 
the  growing  dissipation  and  vice  that  threatened  the 
family. 

In  the  opening  years  of  the  seventeenth  century  re- 
fined English  ladies  preferred  rural  seclusion  to  the  dis- 
soluteness of  the  court  of  James  I.  Charles  purified 
the  court;  yet  the  ladies  stayed  in  the  country. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  while  Puritanism  was 
of  English  growth  the  continent  had  a  Puritanism  of  its 
own.  The  ordinary  Dutchman  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury stayed  at  home  three  hundred  and  sixty  days  in  the 
year  spending  his  time  in  the  ancestral  dwelling  that  his 
grandfather  had  built  for  him.  In  Germany,  says 
Bebel, 

The  merry,  life-loving  townsman  of  the  middle  ages  became  a 
bigoted,  austere,  sombre  Philistine.  .  .  The  honorable  citi- 
zen with  his  stiff  cravat,  his  narrow  intellectual  horizon,  his 
severe  but  hypocritical  morality,  became  the  prototype  of  soci- 
ety. Legitimate  wives  who  had  not  favored  the  sensuality  tol- 
erated by  the  Catholicism  of  the  middle  ages,  were  generally 
better  pleased  by  the  Puritan  spirit  of  Protestantism. 

The  Puritan  emphasis  on  sexual  restraint  was  of  a 
piece  with  the  general  gospel  of  frugality  so  appropri- 
ate among  a  class  of  people  trying  to  accumulate  capital 
in  an  age  of  deficit.  Urgent  economic  interests  fur- 
thered the  novel  virtue  of  male  chastity.  The  neces- 
sity of  accumulation  led  the  Puritan  to  reprobate  all  un- 
profitable forms  of  sin  including  markedly  licentious- 
ness, that  prodigal  waster.  But  male  chastity,  being 
less  important  than  female  in  safeguarding  legitimate 


40         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

inheritance,  never  has  attained  the  sanctity  enforced 
upon  females. 

The  Puritan  concept  of  home  was  negative.  A  home 
was  made  mainly  by  abstaining  from  other  social  rela- 
tions. As  we  have  seen,  communal  pleasures  were  mor- 
ally dangerous  or  at  least  were  so  considered.  Thus 
the  Maypole  had  been  associated  with  sex  excitement 
and  indulgence.  Accordingly  in  1644  the  Puritan  par- 
liament forbade  Maypoles.  The  Puritans  also  con- 
demned music  as  one  of  Satan's  snares  and  ruled  it  out 
of  the  family.  They  were  too  short-sighted  to  glimpse 
the  remoter  connections  between  rhythm  and  efficiency. 
The  Puritan  Englishman  was  unsociable,  independent, 
full  of  biblical  traditions  which  cultivated  reverence  for 
paternal  authority  and  a  desire  for  abundant  paternity. 

English  families  were  among  the  largest  in  the  world. 
The  manor  house,  the  parsonage,  the  doctor's  and  the 
lawyer's  homes  were  swarming  with  children.  The 
women  married  young  and  very  frequently  died  in  their 
youth  from  sheer  exhaustion  by  child-bearing.  Second 
marriages  and  double  sets  of  children  were  found  every- 
where.   Infant  mortality  was  high. 

The  later  Puritanism  distorted  childhood.  Milton's 
father,  tho  a  strict  Puritan,  was  not  harsh  to  his  children, 
but  the  poet  was  the  embodiment  of  unreasonableness 
and  cruelty.  The  seventeenth  century  in  Europe  was 
an  age  of  precocity.  The  Puritans,  as  we  shall  see  in 
the  colonies,  were  ready  to  promote  this  tendency.  The 
fear  of  infant  damnation  made  necessary  the  earliest 
possible  conversion  of  the  child.  In  seventeenth  cen- 
tury England  it  was  in  Puritan  households  that  the  rod 
was  most  favored ;  for  were  not  the  little  ones  until  con- 
version children  of  wrath  requiring  to  have  the  devil 
well  whipped  out  of  them?     Calvinism  retarded,  thus, 


Old  World  Origins -Specific  Sources  41 

what  had  been  a  promising  movement  away  from  the 
rod.  If  the  Puritan  wife  "obeyed  her  husband,  calling 
him  Lord"  she  required  at  the  same  time  strict  obedi- 
ence and  honor  at  the  hands  of  her  children. 

Nevertheless  in  some  homes  of  much  religious  strict- 
ness the  children  were  most  tenderly  dealt  with.  The 
fact  that  so  many  mothers  died  young  may  have  been  a 
factor  in  causing  women  to  train  their  infants  pre- 
maturely. 

A  man's  family  included  his  entire  household  from 
chaplain  to  kitchen  boy,  and  for  their  welfare -soul  and 
body- the  master  considered  himself  accountable.  He 
ruled  at  least  the  lower  of  them  with  the  rod. 

Girls  of  the  seventeenth  century,  like  their  predeces- 
sors, married  early.  While  daughters  were  yet  at  school 
or  even  in  the  nursery,  careful  parents  were  already 
pondering  the  selection  of  husbands.  Children  were 
often  married  at  thirteen.  Daughters  were  usually  al- 
lowed at  least  the  right  of  refusal  but  they  do  not  seem 
to  have  been  prone  to  make  objection.  Both  Puritans 
and  cavaliers  were  ready  to  advise  their  children,  "Let 
not  your  fancy  overrule  your  necessity,"  "Where  pas- 
sion and  affection  sway,  that  man  is  deprived  of  sense 
and  understanding."  Mercenary  marriages  were  in 
keeping  with  the  nature  of  the  hard-headed  middle- 
class  that  took  to  Puritanism.  It  is  surprising  that  the 
majority  of  the  seventeenth  century  marriages  of  which 
we  hear  seem  to  have  turned  out  so  well. 

Under  the  early  Stuarts  the  education  of  women 
continued  to  be  seriously  regarded  but  it  is  doubtful 
whether  the  high  standards  of  the  Tudor  ladies  were 
preserved  save  in  select  circles.  A  volume  published 
in  London  in  1632  declares  that  "the  reason  why  women 
have  no  control  in  Parliament,  why  they  make  no  laws. 


42         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

consent  to  none,  abrogate  none,  is  their  original  sin." 
The  Cromvvellian  period  brought  no  improvement  in 
the  condition  of  woman.  Ministers  still  preached  her 
responsibility  for  the  fall,  and  warnings  were  thundered 
against  her  extreme  sinfulness.  Milton's  views  were 
derogatory  of  woman.  He  says:  "Either  .  .  . 
polygamy  is  a  true  marriage,  or  all  children  born  in 
that  state  are  spurious,  which  would  include  the  whole 
race  of  Jacob,  the  twelve  tribes  chosen  by  God.  .  . 
Not  a  trace  appears  of  the  interdiction  of  polygamy 
throughout  the  whole  law,  not  even  in  any  of  the  proph- 
ets." Paradise  Lost  inculcated  many  views  inimical 
to  woman.  Milton  was  a  tyrant  over  his  own  house, 
unloved  by  any  of  his  series  of  wives  or  by  his  daugh- 
ters. He  did  much  to  strengthen  the  idea  of  woman's 
subordination  to  man:  "He  for  God;  she  for  God  in 
him;"  or  as  Eve  puts  it-"God  thy  law,  thou  mine." 

The  idea  that  learning  was  a  waste  of  time  for  a 
woman  was  beginning  to  assert  itself  but  did  not  meet 
with  universal  acceptance.  The  education  of  women 
was  generally  neglected:  some  women  of  high  rank 
could  not  write.  The  mother  was  generally  found  at 
home  superintending  the  education  of  her  daughters. 
As  housewife  she  was  supposed  to  order  thoroly  her 
household. 

We  must  not  suppose  that  the  Puritan  husband  was 
always  a  despot.  There  were  many  happy  marriages.^^ 
Cromwell's  wife  wrote  to  him:  "My  life  is  but  half  a 
life  in  your  absence,  did  not  the  Lord  make  it  up  in 
Himself."  He  wrote  to  her:  "Thou  art  dearer  to  me 
than  any  creature,  let  that  suffice."    Colonel  Hutchin- 

33  Traill  and  Mann.  Social  England,  vol.  iv,  220;  Byington.  The  Puri- 
tan in  England  and  New  England,  222-231;  Coxe.  Claims  of  the  Country  on 
American  Females,  vol.  ii,  15;  Young.  Chronicles  of  the  First  Planters  of 
the  Colony  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  from  1623  to  1636,  432. 


Old  World  Origins -Specific  Sources  43 

son,  one  of  the  Ironsides,  was  a  model  husband,  full  of 
tenderness  and  devotion.  The  age  shows  many  illustra- 
tions of  beautiful  family  relations.  John  Winthrop 
writes  to  his  wife  thus:  "My  only  beloved  spouse,  my 
most  sweet  friend,  and  faithful  companion  of  my  pil- 
grimage, the  happye  and  hopeful  supplye  (next  Christ 
Jesus)  of  my  greatest  losses."  He  addresses  her  at  va- 
rious times  as -"My  truly  beloved  and  deare  wife.  .  . 
My  sweet  wife.  .  .  My  most  deare  and  sweete 
spouse.  .  .  My  deare  wife,  my  chief  love  in  this 
world."  Mrs.  Winthrop  declared  that  her  husband 
loved  her;  and  "she  delighted  to  steal  time  from  house- 
hold duties  to  talk  with  her  absent  lord."  John  Cotton 
addresses  his  wife  as  "Dear  wife  and  comfortable  yoke- 
fellow    .     .     .     sweetheart." 

The  seventeenth-century  lady  who,  owing  to  her 
shortage  of  money  or  to  other  disability,  had  failed  of 
marriage  enjoyed  none  of  the  present  recourses.  She 
could  not  properly  set  up  bachelor  quarters.  It  was 
customary  for  the  mistress  of  a  house  to  have  a  gentle- 
woman as  assistant  and  such  a  position  afforded  a  nat- 
ural occupation  for  an  unmarried  relative  or  friend  tho 
the  "position  was  often  not  much  better  than  that  of  a 
superior  lady's  maid."  "Even  before  their  marriage, 
if  they  had  no  homes,  and  in  the  hard  and  troublous 
times  of  the  Civil  War,  girls  not  infrequently  accepted 
an  ofifer  of  this  description."^* 

While  the  spirit  of  Puritanism  drew  sharp  lines 
around  the  family  and  strengthened  its  stakes,  there 
were  Reformation  influences,  as  we  have  seen,  that 
tended  to  unsettle  the  family  (along  with  other  social 
institutions).     The  Renaissance  and  the  Reformation 

3*  Bradley.  The  English  Housewife  in  the  Seventeenth  and  Eighteenth 
Centuries,  24, 


44         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

worked  out  in  the  elevation  of  the  individual  and  tended 
to  cause  the  decline  of  the  family  as  a  social  unit.  Every 
man  was  to  stand  on  his  own  feet.  Laxity  of  opinion 
and  teaching  on  the  sacredness  of  the  marriage  bond 
and  in  regard  to  divorce  goes  back  to  continental  Prot- 
estants of  the  sixteenth  century.  It  was  reflected  in  the 
laws  of  Protestant  states  in  Europe  and  in  the  codes  of 
New  England.  The  Reformation  was  not  immediate- 
ly a  great  ethical  force.  The  effect  of  Protestant  lib- 
erty was  at  first  bad  because  it  set  men  free  to  violate 
social  standards.  Rights  were  magnified;  duties  ap- 
proached zero.  Reformers'  later  writings  lament  hor- 
rible moral  deterioration  of  the  people. 

Strange  sects  arose.  In  1532  John  Becold  of  Leyden 
arrived  at  Miinster  with  a  great  number  of  believers. 
He  pretended  to  receive  revelations,  one  of  which  was 
that  God  willed  that  a  man  should  have  as  many  wives 
as  he  pleased.  John  had  fifteen  and  encouraged  poly- 
gamy among  his  followers.  It  was  counted  praise- 
worthy to  have  many  wives  and  all  the  good-looking 
women  in  Miinster  were  besieged  with  solicitations. 
(It  is  noteworthy  that  there  was  a  surplus  of  woman  in 
Miinster  at  the  time.  Such  a  situation  favors  poly- 
gamy.) A  later  leader,  Jan  Wilhelms,  had  twenty-one 
wives. 

Save  at  Miinster  polygamy  was  never  even  proposed 
by  Anabaptists.  Nevertheless  dangerous  influences 
were  spreading.  It  was  at  Norwich  among  an  ofifshoot 
of  Anabaptists  that  Brown  (Separatist)  established  his 
first  congregation.  In  the  eyes  of  the  Brownists  mar- 
riage was  only  an  ordinary  contract  requiring  neither 
minister  nor  magistrate.  Francis  Johnson,  third  chief 
of  the  Brownists,  justified  bundling  with  other  men's 
wives.     The  Pilgrims  were  Brownists.     Robertson  at- 


Old  World  Origins -Specific  Sources  45 

tributes  the  Plymouth  communism  to  Brownist  influ- 
ence. It  may  be  that  some  of  the  sexual  looseness  and 
trouble  with  people  marrying  themselves  (in  New  Eng- 
land) was  a  reflection  of  the  extravagances  of  the  Eu- 
ropean sectaries. 

To  some  the  doctrines  and  practices  of  the  Friends 
seemed  dangerously  loose.  This  sect  believed  mar- 
riage to  be  an  ordinance  of  God,  not  requiring  the  in- 
tervention of  a  clergyman.  The  bride  and  the  groom 
took  each  other  in  presence  of  the  meeting  and  signed 
a  certificate  which  was  then  signed  by  the  audience. 
For  a  time  such  marriages  were  illegal  but  in  1661  a 
decision  was  rendered  in  their  favor.  This  was  an  im- 
portant victory  as  enemies  were  raising  questions  as  to 
legitimacy  and  property  under  such  marriages.  Fox 
claimed  scripture  in  support  of  the  Friends'  practice. 
"Where  do  you  read,"  he  says,  "from  Genesis  to  Revela- 
tion that  ever  any  priest  did  marry  any?" 

But  the  Friends  found  it  necessary  to  censor  marriage. 
Fox  says,  "Many  had  gone  together  in  marriage  con- 
trary to  their  relations  minds;  and  some  young,  raw 
people,  that  came  among  us  had  mixt  with  the  world. 
Widows  had  married  without  making  provision  for 
their  children  by  their  former  husbands,"  etc.  So  it 
was  ordered  that  all  bring  their  marriages  before  the 
meetings.  Fox  opposed  marriage  of  too  near  kindred, 
hasty  remarriages,  and  child  marriages.  He  advocat- 
ed a  register  of  marriages.  None  were  to  marry  with- 
out parents'  or  relatives'  certificate.  The  Quakers  in 
England  were  demanding  (1655)  equal  rights  for  wo- 
men, abolition  of  lewd  sports,  and  establishment  of 
civil  marriage.  The  Quakers  were  a  species  of  Super- 
Puritans. 

Had  the  unsettling,  secularizing,  individualistic  ten- 


/ 


46        The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

dencies  of  the  Protestant  movement  gone  altogether 
without  counteraction  the  family  would  doubtless  have 
approached  a  stage  of  disintegration  comparable  to 
that  of  to-day.  Milton's  liberal  divorce  ideas  are  no- 
torious. Puritan  advocacy  of  divorce  was  stimulated 
by  the  trading-class  opposition  to  feudalism. ^^  Indis- 
soluble marriage,  vital  to  feudalism,  was  a  convenient 
point  of  attack.  (Present  outcry  against  "the  divorce 
evil"  comes  chiefly  from  the  ritualistic  churches,  them- 
selves survivals  of  feudalism.)  But  the  original  ground 
of  monogamy- the  necessity  of  restricted  and  ascer- 
tained progeny  as  heirs- remained  and  monogamy  was 
consequently  retained  with  divorce  as  a  loophole.  An 
additional  support  of  monogamy  continued  in  the  fact 
that  the  order  of  exploitation  established  by  the  bour- 
geoisie like  its  feudal  predecessor  kept  most  men  too 
poor  to  afford  a  plurality  of  wives. 

There  was  sufficient  canniness  in  the  Calvinist  to  pre- 
vent excess  of  riot.  The  Puritans  were  men  of  business 
and  where  the  financial  pawn  is  at  stake  marriage  is 
likely  to  be  relatively  stable.  The  significance  of  Cal- 
vin's position  (for  the  purpose  of  this  study)  will  be 
very  evident  if  we  remember  the  make-up  of  the  colo- 
nial population.  Through  all  the  colonies  ran  the  creed 
of  Calvin  whose  doctrines  lived  in  the  Puritan,  the 
Dutch  Reformed,  the  Huguenot,  the  Scotch-Irish.  It 
may  be  well  therefore  to  cite  the  position  of  this  man 
whose  teachings  influenced  so  deeply  the  foundations 
of  America. 

From  our  point  of  view  at  least,  Calvin's  doctrine  of 
marriage  lacks  consistency  and,  judged  by  present  no- 
tions, his  conception  of  the  marriage  relation  is  by  no 
means  a  high  one.     True,  he  does  liken  the  conjugal 

35  Meily.     Puritanism,  58. 


Old  World  Origins -Specific  Sources  /\rj 

relation  to  that  existing  between  Christ  and  the  believer 
and  insists  that  it  must  be  supported  by  mutual  fidelity 
but  when  all  is  said  marriage  is,  according  to  his  teach- 
ing, simply  a  vent  to  passion,  a  last  resort  when  self- 
control  fails.  (The  Westminster  larger  catechism 
enumerates  among  "the  duties  required  in  the  seventh 
commandment  .  .  .  marriage  by  those  that  have 
not  the  gift  of  continency.")  Woman,  wife,  thus  be- 
came a  channel  for  lust,  tho  even  in  matrimony  due  re- 
straint and  moderation  were  to  be  observed. 

Children  were  to  be  kept  in  strict  subjection.  "Those 
who  violate  the  parental  authority  by  contempt  or  re- 
bellion, are  not  men  but  monsters.  Therefore  the  Lord 
commands  all  those  who  are  disobedient  to  their  parents 
to  be  put  to  death."  '^ 

Obviously  this  stern  doctrine  of  the  family  was  cal- 
culated to  develop  an  institution  under  paternal  su- 
premacy with  the  wife  a  mere  adjunct  to  her  lord's 
desires  and  the  children  minor  slaves  of  his  will.  Such 
results  are  easier  to  secure  than  the  masculine  fidelity 
with  which  Calvin  idealized  his  teachings.  It  will  be 
found  that,  in  broad  outline,  the  colonial  family  re- 
flected the  type  approved  by  Calvin,  tho  not  without 
mollifications  induced  by  fatherly  love  or  by  the  limits 
of  wifely  and  filial  patience,  or  imposed  by  the  sense  of 
the  community. 

Inasmuch  as  the  first  English  colony  of  the  North 
was  formed  by  sojourners  from  Holland  it  is  well  be- 
fore proceeding  to  the  study  of  colonial  life  to  examine 
the  influences  to  which  the  Pilgrims  were  subject  dur- 
ing their  stay  in  the  low  countries. 

In  Leyden  the  (Dutch)  people  generally  were  be- 
trothed or  married  very  young.     Sometimes  the  be- 

2^  On  Calvin,  see  his  Institutes,  vol.  i,  344-345,  360,  364-367. 


48         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

trothal  was  of  considerable  duration  and  the  betrothed 
pair  enjoyed  great  liberty.  At  the  end  of  the  sixteenth 
century  marriage  was  solemnized  in  church,  tho  some- 
what privately,  but  inside  of  ten  years  it  became  almost 
entirely  a  civil  ceremony,  celebrated  in  presence  of  the 
magistrate.  Pastor  Robinson  agreed  "that  the  cere- 
monies of  marriage  and  burial,  being  common  to  all 
men,  whether  Christian  or  heathen,  were  no  part  of  the 
services  of  the  church,  and  should  be  performed  .  .  . 
by  a  civil  magistrate." 

Some  other  features  of  Dutch  life  seem  to  have  in- 
fluenced American  life  through  the  Pilgrims.  One  was 
the  high  position  of  women.  The  women  of  Nether- 
lands in  the  sixteenth  century  were  distinguished  by 
beauty  of  form  and  vigor  of  constitution.  Unconfined, 
travelling  alone  and  unafraid,  they  had  acquired  man- 
ners more  frank  and  independent  than  women  in  other 
lands,  while  their  morals  were  pure  and  their  decorum 
undoubted.  The  women  of  the  Dutch  Netherlands  in 
the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  were  more  high- 
ly educated,  better  protected  by  the  laws,  and  more 
prominent  in  station  than  any  of  their  contemporaries." 
On  the  wife's  judgment,  prudence,  foresight,  everything 
hinged.  In  business,  women's  opinions  were  sought 
and  valued.  They  often  engaged  unquestioned  in  busi- 
ness independent  of  their  men-folk.  Holland  was  the 
only  country  where  boys  and  girls  were  educated  alike 
in  the  same  schools.  In  most  cities  husband  and  wife 
were  responsible  for  each  others'  debts.  According  to 
Moryson  the  husbands  were  veritable  slaves  and  he  tells 
of  one  wife  who  said  that  her  husband  "had  newly  asked 

37  Compare  Van  Rensselaer,  The  Goede  Vrouiu  of  Mana-ha-fa,  i6og-jy6o, 
10-13;  Motley,  Rise  of  the  Dutch  Republic,  vol.  i,  98;  Cockshott,  The  Pil- 
grim Fathers,  n6,  117. 


Old  World  Origins -Specific  Sources  49 

her  leave  to  goe  abroade."  "I  may  boldly  say,"  he  re- 
marks, "that  the  women  of  those  parts,  are  above  all 
others  truly  taxed  with  this  unnatural  domineering  over 
their  husbands."  The  high  position  of  woman  was  not 
approved  by  English  writers.  Guicciardini,  also, 
writes:  "The  Women  governe  all,  both  within  doors 
and  without,  and  make  all  bargains,  which  joyned  with 
the  natural  desire  that  Women  have  to  bear  rule,  mak- 
eth  them  too  imperious  and  troublesome." 

The  rights  of  wife  and  children  were  very  carefully 
secured.  A  wife  could  bequeath  her  dowry  as  she 
pleased  and,  if  childless,  could  will  to  her  kin,  after  her 
husband's  death,  half  of  what  he  had  acquired  after 
marriage.  Should  husbands  "either  break  in  life-time, 
or  be  found  banckerouts  at  death  the  wives  are  pre- 
ferred to  all  debtors  in  the  recovery  of  their  dowry." 
The  influence  of  this  usage  on  Plymouth  law  will  be 
suggested  in  the  study  of  that  colony,  as  also  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Dutch  law  of  inheritance  which  provided 
for  far  greater  equality  among  members  of  the  family 
than  prevailed  in  England. 

In  Holland  estates  were  usually  left  to  be  divided 
equally  among  all  the  children.  Thus  few  received 
enough  for  maintenance  and  it  was  necessary  to  learn 
self-support.  A  son  could  not  be  disinherited  save  for 
certain  causes  approved  by  law  and  a  father  must  leave 
at  least  one-third  his  estate  for  his  children.  More- 
over, upon  the  death  of  their  mother  the  children  could 
require  their  father  to  divide  his  goods  with  them  "lest 
he  should  waste  all." 

Dutch  influence  had  something  to  do  with  the  broad 
liberal  policy  of  the  first  generation  of  Pilgrims.  More- 
over, the  Pilgrims  had  during  their  twelve  years  in  Hoi- 


50         The  Anur'uan  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

land  an  excellent  experience  in  family  training.     The 
schools  were  Dutch  and  home  training  was  necessary. 

Conditions  in  Holland  were  not  sufficiently  favorable 
to  invite  permanent  residence. 

¥oT  [says  Bradford]  many  of  their  children,  that  were  of  best 
dispositions  and  gracious  inclinations,  having  learned  to  bear 
the  yoke  in  their  youth,  and  willing  to  bear  part  of  their  parents 
burdens,  were  oftentimes  so  oppressed  with  their  heavy  labors, 
tho  their  minds  were  free  and  willing,  yet  their  bodies  bowed 
under  the  weight  of  the  same  and  they  became  decrepit  in  their 
early  youth.  .  .  Many  of  their  children  .  .  ,  were 
drawn  away  by  evil  examples  into  extravagant  and  dangerous 
courses,  getting  the  reins  off  their  necks,  and  departing  from 
their  parents. 

This  was  one  of  the  considerations  that  led  to  migra- 
tion to  America. 


III.     COURTSHIP  AND  MARRIAGE  IN 
COLONIAL  NEW  ENGLAND 

In  essentials  the  marriage  usages  of  the  United  States 
run  back  to  the  period  before  the  Revolution.  The 
American  colonist  of  English  stock  was  a  home-builder 
from  the  beginning.  It  was  because  the  hazards  of 
life  at  home  made  it  impossible  to  gather  a  competence 
for  their  children  that  the  religious  enthusiasts  sought 
a  settled  habitation  over  seas.^^  These  sturdy  English- 
men came,  not  as  individual  adventurers,  but  as  fam- 
ilies. If  men  came  alone  it  was  to  prepare  the  way  for 
wife  and  children  or  sweetheart  by  the  next  ship  and 
they  came  to  stay.  The  success  of  English  colonization 
as  contrasted  with  the  more  brilliant  but  less  substantial 
French  and  Spanish  occupation  of  the  new  world  is  due 
to  its  family  nature. 

The  white  colonial  population  of  New  England  was 
pure  English  save  for  some  Scotch-Irish  in  New  Hamp- 
shire and  Huguenots  in  Massachusetts  and  Rhode  Is- 
land. This  homogeneity  of  the  North  Atlantic  colonies 
makes  it  possible  to  study  them  as  a  group  and  simpli- 
fies the  understanding  of  their  cultural  lineage. 

Marriages  began  at  an  early  date  in  the  new  world. 
Love-making  must  have  been  a  welcome  pastime  on  the 
interminable  voyages  of  those  days  and  chaperonage 
seems  to  have  been  unknown  in  colonial  life.  Men 
took  long  rides  with  the  damsel  on  the  pillion  behind 
them.     Certainly  the  Puritans,  sharply  struggling,  fru- 

^**  Smythe.     Conquest  of  Arid  America,  12,  14. 


52         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 


gal,  and  homekeeping,  did  not  multiply  social  functions 
as  means  for  intercourse  of  youths  and  maidens.  Till 
the  singing-school  came  to  save  the  day,  regular  oppor- 
tunities for  young  New  Englanders  to  become  acquaint- 
ed with  prospective  mates  were  apparently  few.  But 
even  in  New  England,  maidens  enjoyed  large  liberty, 
for  the  neighborhoods  were  at  first  composed  of  ap- 
proved families  and  in  any  case  it  was  impossible  in  the 
;  wild,  rough,  new  land,  where  every  hand  was  needed 
for  urgent  labor,  to  think  of  secluding  girls.  To  such 
influences  we  may  trace  the  liberty  of  the  modern  Amer- 
ican girl.  Untoward  results  sometimes  ensued,  even  in 
supposedly  staid  colonial  days,  before  the  primitive 
simplicity  was  adequately  safeguarded. 

Love  and  marriage  at  first  sight  brought  romantic  in- 
terest to  the  wilderness  life  where  existence  without 
home  connections  offered  no  attraction  to  serious  men. 
In  more  than  one  instance  a  lonely  Puritan  came  to  the 
door  of  a  maiden  he  had  never  seen,  presented  creden- 
tials, told  his  need  of  a  housekeeper,  proposed  marriage, 
obtained  hasty  consent,  and  notified  the  town  clerk,  all 
in  one  day.  On  one  occasion  a  bold  fellow  removed  a 
rival's  name  from  the  posted  marriage  notice,  inserted 
his  own,  and  carried  off  the  bride.  After  his  death  she 
married  the  first  lover.  Another  Lochinvar  kidnapped 
a  bride-to-be  on  the  eve  of  marriage. 

In  some  parts  of  Connecticut  courtship  was  carried 
on  in  the  living-room  in  the  presence  of  the  family. 
Sara  Knight,  who  journeyed  from  Boston  to  New  York 
and  back  in  1704,  notes  the  Puritanism  of  people  along 
the  way  who  would  not  allow  harmless  kissing  among 
the  young  people.  An  earlier  English  traveller  gives 
a  cheering  glimpse  of  Boston:  ''On  the  South  there 
is  a  small  but  pleasant  common,  where  the  gallants,  a 
little  before  sunset,  walk  with  their  Marmalet-Madams 


Courtship  and  Marriage  in  New  England      53 

till  the  nine  o'clock  bell  rings  them  home  to  their  re- 
spective habitations." 

In  at  least  one  noteworthy  case  the  maiden  did  the 
courting.     Cotton  Mather  writes: 

There  is  a  young  gentlewoman  of  incomparable  accomplish- 
ments. No  gentlewoman  in  the  English  Americas  has  had  a 
more  polite  education.  She  is  one  of  rare  witt  and  sense;  and 
of  a  comely  aspect ;  and  .  .  .  she  has  a  mother  of  an  extra- 
ordinary character  for  her  piety.  This  young  gentlewoman 
first  addresses  me  with  diverse  letters,  and  then  makes  me  a  visit 
at  my  house;  wherein  she  gives  me  to  understand,  that  she  has 
long  had  more  than  an  ordinary  value  for  my  ministry ;  and  that 
since  my  present  condition  has  given  her  more  of  liberty  to  think 
of  me,  she  must  confess  herself  charmed  with  my  person,  to  such 
a  degree,  that  she  could  not  but  break  in  upon  me,  with  her 
most  importunate  requests,  that  I  should  make  her  mine,  and 
that  the  highest  consideration  she  had  in  it  was  her  eternal  sal- 
vation, for  if  she  were  mine,  she  could  not  but  hope  the  effect  of 
it  would  be  that  she  should  also  be  Christ's.  I  endeavored  faith- 
fully to  set  before  her  all  the  discouraging  circumstances  at- 
tending me,  that  I  could  think  of.  She  told  me  that  she  had 
weighed  all  those  discouragements  but  was  fortified  and  resolved 
with  a  strong  faith  in  the  mighty  God  for  to  encounter  them 
all.  .  .  I  was  in  a  great  strait  how  to  treat  so  polite  a  gen- 
tlewoman. .  .  I  plainly  told  her  that  I  feared,  whether  her 
proposal  would  not  meet  with  unsurmountable  opposition,  from 
those  who  had  a  great  interest  in  disposing  of  me.  However  I 
desired  that  there  might  be  time  taken.  .  .  In  the  mean- 
time, if  I  could  not  make  her  my  own,  I  should  be  glad  of  being 
any  way  instrumental,  to  make  her  the  Lord's.  .  .  She  is 
not  much  more  than  twenty  years  old.  I  know  she  has  been  a 
very  aiery  person.  Her  reputation  has  been  under  some  disad- 
vantage. What  snares  may  be  laying  for  me  I  know  not.  [The 
gossip  that  arose  about  this  case  became  such  a  nuisance  that] 
all  the  friends  I  have  .  .  .  persuade  me,  that  I  shall  have 
no  way  to  get  from  under  these  confusions  but  by  proceeding 
unto  another  marriage.    Lord  help  me,  what  shall  I  do?  ^^ 

39  Mather's  Diary    (Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  seventh 
ser.,  vol.  vii),  part  i,  457-458,  477, 


54         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

The  fathers  seem  to  have  relied  much  on  the  Lord 
ill  their  courtship.  On  the  occasion  of  his  widowhood 
Mather  wrote:  "1  have  committed  unto  my  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  the  care  of  providing  an  agreeable  consort 
for  me,  if  my  support  in  the  service  of  his  church  .  .  . 
render  it  necessary  or  convenient."  Later  he  thinks 
that  the  Lord  is  arranging  things  tho  the  people  are 
worrying  him  about  matches.  It  would  be  hard  for 
them  to  tell,  one  might  suppose,  how  much  had  been 
done  by  divine  agency,  inasmuch  as  match-makers  were 
common.  Thus  Sewall  writes  of  his  second  wife:  ".  .  . 
My  loving  wife,  who  was  the  promoter  of  the  match 
[of  daughter  Judith]  and  an  industrious  contriver  of 
my  daughter's  comfortable  settlement"  has  died.  "I 
need  your  prayers  that  God  .  .  .  would  yet  again 
provide  such  a  good  wife  for  me,  that  I  may  be  able  to 
say  I  have  obtained  favor  of  the  Lord ;  or  else  to  make  it 
best  for  me  to  spend  the  remnant  of  my  life  in  a  wid- 
owed condition." 

Parents  had,  of  course,  a  profound  interest  in  their 
children's  matrimonial  outlook.  We  find  Judge  Sewall 
craftily  and  slyly  endeavoring  to  ascertain  whether  his 
daughter  Mary's  prospective  suitor  had  previously 
courted  another  girl.  Later  we  read:  "In  the  even- 
ing Sam  Gerrish  came  not;  we  expected  him;  Mary 
dress'd  herself;  it  was  a  painfull  disgracefull  disapoint- 
ment."  A  month  later  the  delinquent  lover  returned 
and  finally  married  Mary,  who  died  shortly  and  thus 
opened  the  way  for  a  speedy  remarriage  to  his  first  love. 

Zeal  for  parental  authority  shows  itself  in  legal  at- 
tempts to  restrain  eager  suitors  from  their  unauthorized 
courting  of  "men's  daughters  and  maids  under  guard- 
ians .  .  .  and  of  mayde  servants."  As  late  as  1756, 
Connecticut  recognized  the  right  of  parents  to  dispose 


Courtship  and  Marriage  in  New  England      55 

of  children  in  marriage.  In  New  Haven,  1660,  Jacob 
Minline  went  into  the  room  where  Sarah  Tuttle  was, 
seized  her  gloves,  and  then  kissed  her.  "They  sat  down 
together;  his  arm  being  about  her;  and  her  arm  upon 
his  shoulder  or  about  his  neck;  and  hee  kissed  her,  and 
shee  kissed  him,  or  they  kissed  one  another,  continuing 
in  this  posture  about  half  an  hour."  Father  Tuttle 
sued  Jacob  for  inveigling  his  daughter's  affections. 
When  asked  in  court  whether  Jacob  inveigled  her  affec- 
tions she  answered  "No;"  so  the  court  fined  Sarah  rath- 
er than  Jacob,  calling  her  a  "bould  virgin."  She 
answered  "she  hoped  God  would  help  her  to  carry  it 
better  for  time  to  come."  At  the  end  of  two  years  her 
fine  was  still  unpaid  and  half  of  it  was  remitted. 

In  spite  of  all  the  seeming  parental  tyranny  that  pre- 
vailed in  colonial  days  young  women  seem  to  have  exer- 
cised considerable  independence  in  love  affairs.  Betty 
Sewall,  to  her  father's  dismay,  refused  several  suitors. 
Once  he  writes  urging  her  to  think  well  before  she  dis- 
misses a  certain  suitor  but  telling  her,  nevertheless,  that 
if  she  can  not  love,  honor,  and  obey  the  man,  her  father 
will  say  no  more. 

Parents  were  not,  indeed,  legally  supreme  over  their 
children's  espousal.  The  general  authority  pursued  its 
own  ends  and  might  work  against  the  parental  authority 
as  well  as  with  it.  In  a  new  country,  needing  popula- 
tion, it  was  natural  that  pious  authorities  should  frown 
upon  any  discouragement  of  legitimate  increase.  The 
interests  of  the  community  took  precedence  over  the  pri- 
vate interests  of  parents,  guardians,  and  masters.  Mar- 
riage was  normally  undelayed.  Appeal  to  a  magistrate 
was  in  order  in  case  of  unreasonable  opposition  by  those 
in  charge  of  the  young  people.  Thus  unruly  parents 
could  be  brought  to  terms.  . 


56         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

Parents  could  be  held  to  account  for  evil  results  of 
unreasonable  opposition.  In  1679  a  couple  being  con- 
victed of  fornication  before  marriage,  the  case  was  held 
over  and  parents  summoned  to  show  why  they  denied 
the  young  couple  marriage  so  long  "after  they  were  in 
order  thereto."  Such  a  decision  would  be  distasteful 
to  those  that  regarded  as  a  divine  gift  the  parental  pow- 
er to  dispose  of  a  child  in  marriage.  We  can  imagine 
how  it  would  impress  the  colonial  gentleman  who  once 
expressed  the  opinion  that  "virgin  modesty  .  .  . 
should  make  marriage  an  act  rather  of  obedience  than 
choice  .  .  .  and  they  that  think  their  friends  too 
slow-paced  in  the  matter  give  certain  proof  that  lust  is 
the  sole  motive." 

Breach  of  promise  sometimes  occurred.  Suits  seem 
to  have  been  rare;  but  cases  were  sometimes  brought 
against  both  men  and  women  and  there  are  instances  of 
damages  assessed  in  behalf  of  men  as  well  as  for  women. 
Such  episodes  suggest  the  economic  element  in  mar- 
riage. 

The  European  tendency  to  mercenary  marriage  car- 
ried over  to  the  new  world.  Capital  was  naturally  in 
urgent  demand.  Marriage  was  accorded  matter-of- 
fact  treatment.  No  sentiment  was  presupposed  and  it 
was  easy  for  marriage  to  degenerate  into  a  mere  bar- 
gain. Emanuel  Downing,  one  of  the  ablest  Puritans, 
writes  in  1640  of  his  matrimonial  projects  for  children 
and  niece,  for  which  maiden  he  had  secured  a  "varie 
good  match,"  a  member  of  the  church  with  an  estate  of 
four  hundred  or  five  hundreds  pounds.  Governor  Win- 
throp  was  Mrs.  Downing's  brother  and  guardian  to  the 
little  orphan  girl,  Rebecca  Cooper,  "a  verie  good 
match,"  an  "inheritance"  on  whom  Downing  and  his 
wife  had  pitched  as  a  fit  wife  for  their  son.    Without 


Courtship  and  Marriage  in  New  England      57 

speaking  to  the  girl  they  wrote  to  the  governor.  He 
refused 

For  the  present,  for  these  grounds.  First:  The  girle  desires 
not  to  mary  as  yet.  Secondlie:  Shee  confesseth  (which  is  the 
truth)  hereself  to  be  altogether  yett  unfitt  for  such  a  condition, 
shee  being  a  verie  girl  and  but  fifteen  yeares  of  age.  Thirdlie: 
When  the  man  was  moved  to  her  shee  said  shee  could  not  like 
him.  Fourthlie:  You  know  it  would  be  of  ill  reporte  that  a 
girl  because  she  hath  some  estate  should  bee  disposed  of  soe 
young,  espetialie  not  having  any  parents  to  choose  for  her.  .  . 
If  this  will  not  satisfy  some,  let  the  court  take  her  from  mee 
and  place  with  any  other  to  dispose  of  her.  I  shall  be  content. 
Which  I  heare  was  plotted  to  accomplish  this  end. 

There  was  doubtless  point  to  the  Massachusetts  law  of 
1646  that  no  female  orphan  during  her  minority  should 
be  given  in  marriage  except  with  the  approbation  of 
the  majority  of  the  selectmen  of  her  town. 

Luce  Downing  was  persuaded  by  her  mercenary  par- 
ents' statement  of  pecuniary  benefits  to  wed  Mr.  Norton 
to  her  father's  delight,  who  wrote:  "Shee  may  stay 
long  ere  she  meet  with  a  better  unless  I  had  more  monie 
for  her  than  I  now  can  spare."  But  the  girl's  affections 
were  vacillating;  she  seemed  to  be  proposing  to  jilt 
Norton.  His  brother  wrote  a  pointed  letter  to  the  gov- 
ernor about  her  vagaries.  More  liberal  settlements 
were  made;  so  she  married  Norton.  The  crassly  mon- 
etary philanderings  of  Sewall"  illustrate  splendidly 
the  mercenary  spirit  pervading  the  match-making  of 
the  New  Englanders. 

The  useful  function  of  widows  in  colonial  economics 
appears  in  the  frank  words  of  one  worthy  who  says, 

Our  uncle  is  not  at  present  able  to  pay  you  or  any  other  he  owes 
money  to.  If  he  was  able  to  pay  he  would ;  they  must  have  pa- 
tience till  God  enable  him.     As  his  wife  died  in  mercy  near 

*"  Summarized  in  Goodsell,  History  of  the  Family,  360-363 ;  Earle,  Cus- 
toms and  Fashions  in  Old  Nnv  England,  43-56. 


58         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

twelve  months  since,  it  may  be  he  may  light  of  some  rich  widow- 
that  may  make  him  capable  to  pay;  except  God  in  this  way 
raise  him  he  cannot  pay  you  or  any  one  else. 

Benjamin  Franklin,  in  the  New  England  Courant 

of  December  11,   1721,  lampoons  economic  marriage 

thus: 

ON  SYLVIA  THE  FAIR- A  JINGLE 

A  Swarm  of  Sparks,  young,  gay,  and  bold, 
Lov'd  Sylvia  long,  but  she  was  cold ; 
Int'rest  and  pride  the  nymph  control'd, 
So  they  in  vain  their  passion  told. 
At  last  came  Dulman,  he  was  old. 
Nay,  he  was  ugly,  but  had  gold. 
He  came,  and  saw,  and  took  the  hold. 
While  t'other  beaux  their  loss  consol'd. 
Some  say,  she  's  wed ;  I  say  she  's  sold. 

Speculating  fops  are  hit  in  the  Courant  of  January 
29,  1722: 

Adv.  Several  journeymen  gentlemen  (some  foreigners  and 
others  of  our  own  growth),  never  sully'd  with  business,  and  fit 
for  town  or  country  diversion,  are  willing  to  dispose  of  them- 
selves in  marriage,  as  follows,  viz:  Some  to  old  virgins,  who, 
by  long  industry  have  laid  up  £500,  or  proved  themselves 
capable  of  maintaining  a  husband  in  a  genteel  and  commendable 
idleness.  Some  to  old  or  young  widows,  who  have  estates  of 
their  first  husband's  getting,  to  dispose  of  at  their  second  hus- 
band's pleasure.  And  some  to  young  ladies,  under  age,  who 
have  their  fortunes  in  their  own  hands,  and  are  willing  to  main- 
tain a  pretty',  genteel  man,  rather  than  be  without  him. 

N.B.  The  above  gentlemen  may  be  spoke  with  almost  any 
hour  in  the  day  at  the  Tick-Tavern  in  Prodigal  Square,  and 
will  proceed  to  courtship  as  soon  as  their  mistresses  shall  pay 
their  tavern  score. 

The  genuine  matrimonial  advertisement  put  in  its 
appearance  in  1759.  In  the  Boston  Evening  Post^  Feb. 
23,  1759)  appeared: 

To  the  ladies.  Any  young  lady  betvveen  the  age  of  18  and  23 
of  a  midling  stature;  brown  hair,  regular  features  and  a  lively 


Courtship  and  Marriage  in  New  England      59 

brisk  eye:  of  good  morals  and  not  tinctured  with  anything  that 
may  sully  so  distinguishable  a  form  possessed  of  £300  or  400 
entirely  her  own  disposal  and  where  there  will  be  no  necessity 
of  going  through  the  tiresome  talk  of  addressing  parents  or 
guardians  for  their  consent:  such  a  one  by  leaving  a  line  directed 
for  A.W.  at  the  British  Coffee  House  in  King  Street  appoint- 
ing where  an  interview  may  be  had  will  meet  with  a  person 
who  flatters  himself  he  shall  not  be  thought  disagreeable  by  any 
lady  answering  the  above  description.  N.B.  Profound  secrecy 
will  be  observ'd.     No  trifling  answers  will  be  regarded. 

We  have  ample  evidence  that  fashionable  courtship 
was  permeated  by  a  constantly  economic  spirit.  Hap- 
py husbands  were  ready  to  sue  their  fathers-in-law  if 
they  proved  too  tardy  or  remiss  in  the  matter  of  the 
bridal  portion."  For  years  Edward  Palmer  worried 
the  Winthrops  about  their  sister's  (his  first  wife's) 
dowry,  long  after  he  had  taken  a  second  wife.  In  1679 
James  Willet,  who  had  married  Lieutenant  Peter 
Hunt's  daughter  Elizabeth,  claimed  that  the  father  had 
promised  one  hundred  pounds  as  inducement.  He 
sued  for  payment  but  lost  and  had  to  pay  costs.  Still 
the  marriage  seems  to  have  been  honorable  and  happy. 
Judge  Sewall  after  his  daughter's  death  higgled  with 
her  father-in-law  over  her  dowry  and  grief  did  not  dull 
his  shrewdness. 

As  has  already  been  suggested,  the  entrance  to  matri- 
mony was  well  guarded  in  colonial  New  England.  The 
law  required  previous  publication,  parental  consent,  and 
registration.  Throughout  New  England  except  in  New 
Hampshire  the  law  enforced  for  nearly  two  centuries 
the  publication  of  the  banns  three  times  preliminary  to 
marriage.  Sometimes  consent  of  parents  was  included 
in  the  notice  of  banns.     New  Hampshire  law,  breezy 

*^  Earle.     Customs  and  Fashions  in  Old  Neiv  England,  62. 


6o         The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

foreshadowing  of  western  recklessness,  made  possible 
''unpublished"  marriage  for  such  as  would  pay  two 
guineas  for  a  license.  Considerations  of  revenue  were 
the  spring  of  this  radicalism.  Sometimes  parsons  kept 
a  stock  of  these  licenses  on  hand  for  issue  to  eloping 
couples  at  a  profit."^  Runaway  marriages  without  pub- 
lication were  not  considered  very  respectable;  strict- 
ness in  regard  to  marriage  was  as  much  in  the  interest 
of  the  state  as  for  the  satisfaction  of  parents. 

New  England  called  a  halt  to  the  growing  tendency 
to  make  marriage  an  ecclesiastical  function.  Marriage 
was  declared  to  be  a  civil  contract,  not  a  sacrament,  and 
to  require  no  priestly  intervention.  In  the  early  period 
the  Puritans  were  ordinarily  more  careful  than  Calvin 
who  called  the  conjugal  relation  "sacred."  They  were 
satisfied  with  calling  it  "honorable."  The  publication 
of  banns  was  ordinarily  set  for  a  public  lecture  or  train- 
ing day  rather  than  on  the  Sabbath.  The  administra- 
tion of  the  marriage  law  was  a  local  function,  per- 
formed by  town  officers.  The  Pilgrims  had  adopted 
the  views  of  the  Dutch  Calvinists  as  to  marriage ;  they 
held  that  neither  Scripture  nor  the  primitive  Christians 
had  ever  authorized  clergymen  to  perform  marriage 
services,  but  that  marriage  with  its  civil  obligations  and 
connection  with  property  rights  as  well  as  its  impor- 
tance in  a  business  way  to  the  state  should  be  a  strictly 
civil  contract  to  be  entered  into  before  a  magistrate. 
Thus  William  Bradford  writes: 

May  12  was  the  first  marriage  in  this  place;  which  according  to 
the  laudable  custom  of  the  low-cuntries,  in  which  they  had 
lived,  was  thought  most  requisite  to  be  performed  by  the  magis- 
trate, as  being  a  civill  thing  upon  which  many  questions  about 
inheritances  doe  depende  with  other  things  most  proper  to  their 
cognizance,  and  most  consonante  to  the  Scriptures. 

•*2  Earle.     Customs  and  Fashions  in  Old  Neiv  England,  76. 


Courtship  and  Marriage  in  New  England      6i 

Civil  marriage  was  not  only  the  custom;  it  was  the  only 
legal  form.     Winthrop  reports  an  interesting  case. 

There  was  a  great  marriage  to  be  solemnized  at  Boston.  The 
bridegroom  being  of  Hingham  Mr.  Hubbard's  church,  he  was 
procured  to  preach  and  came  to  Boston  to  that  end.  But  the 
magistrates  .  .  .  sent  to  him  to  forbear.  The  reasons :  .  .  . 
For  that  his  spirit  had  been  discovered  to  be  averse  to  our  ec- 
clesiastical and  civil  government;  and  he  was  a  bold  man  and 
would  speak  his  mind.  2.  We  were  not  willing  to  bring  in  the 
English  custom  of  ministers  performing  the  solemnities  of  mar- 
riage, which  sermons  at  such  times  might  induce;  but  if  any 
ministers  were  present,  and  would  bestow  a  word  of  exhorta- 
tion, etc.,  it  was  permitted. 

Opposition  to  a  religious  ceremony  existed  at  a  late 
date.  A  Huguenot  clergyman  was  haled  to  court  in 
1685  for  solemnizing  marriages  in  Boston.  He  agreed 
to  desist  but  presently  forgot  his  promise.  For  some 
reason  he  saw  fit  to  depart  the  same  week  for  New  York. 

In  the  early  years  of  the  colonies  the  English  usage 
of  ceremonial  betrothal  persisted.  In  Plymouth  this 
observance  was  known  as  pre-contract.  Cotton  Mather 
says :  "There  was  maintained  a  solemnity  called  a  con- 
traction a  little  before  the  consummation  of  a  marriage 
was  allowed  of.  A  pastor  was  usually  employed  and  a 
sermon  also  preached  on  this  occasion."  One  minister 
preached  from  Ephesians,  vi,  10,  11,  in  order  "to  teach 
that  marriage  is  a  state  of  warfaring  condition."  The 
moral  tendency  of  this  half-way  marriage  must  have 
been  bad. 

In  many  towns  disorderly  marriages -many  of  them, 
doubtless,  between  Quakers-were  punished.  Cases  of 
self-betrothal  seem  to  have  been  frequent  and  an  ob- 
server writes  that  "there  are  those  who  practice  no 
formality  of  marriage  except  joining  hands  and  so  live." 


62         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

The  possible  connection  of  such  laxity  with  Brownism 
has  already  been  suggested.  Clandestine  marriages 
were  frequent  enough  to  be  troublesome.  The  second 
generation  at  Plymouth  developed  radicalism.  One 
fancy  was  the  performance  of  marriage  by  unauthor- 
ized persons.  Some  couples  dispensed  with  celebrant 
altogether.  Men  were  fined  for  disorderly  marriage. 
In  Boston  in  1641,  Governor  Bellingham  gave  scandal 
by  suddenly  marrying  a  woman  who  was  about  forming 
a  contract  with  another.  The  banns  had  not  been  legal- 
ly published  and  he  married  himself.  He  was  prose- 
cuted but  refused  to  leave  the  bench  of  the  court.  Amid 
excitement  the  case  was  postponed  and  it  was  not  again 
called  up.  Some  couples  were  fined  every  month  till 
they  were  properly  married. 

A  Rhode  Island  act  of  1647  outlaws  the  simple  mar- 
riage by  agreement.  The  Rhode  Island  colony  records 
contain  the  case  of  a  couple  who  had  married  them- 
selves before  witnesses.  The  woman  had  been  legally 
separated  from  her  husband,  who  got  away  with  most 
of  her  estate.  So  she  took  up  with  George  Gardener 
for  her  maintenance  but  was  oppressed  in  spirit  because 
she  judged  him  not  to  be  lawfully  her  husband.  She 
petitioned  to  have  her  property  and  live  apart.  The 
assembly  stigmatizes  her  as  an  abominable  fornicator. 
The  pair  had  owned  each  other  as  man  and  wife  for 
eighteen  or  twenty  years.  Each  was  fined  twenty 
pounds  and  ordered  "not  to  lead  soe  scandalose  life." 
Thereafter  such  marriages  were  to  be  proceeded  against 
as  for  fornication.  Due  rules  for  marriage  should  be 
observed.  Exception  was  made  in  favor  of  those  then 
irregularly  living  as  man  and  wife.  They  must  live 
together. 

A  New  London  scapegrace  insisted  on  taking  up 


Courtship  and  Marriage  in  New  England      63 

with  a  woman  and  making  her  his  wife  without  cere- 
mony. The  affair  was  a  scandal  to  the  community.  A 
magistrate,  meeting  the  couple  on  the  street,  accosted 
them  thus:  "John  Rogers,  do  you  persist  in  calling 
this  woman,  a  servant,  so  much  younger  than  yourself, 
your  wife?"  "Yes,  I  do,"  retorted  John.  "And  do 
you,  Mary,  wish  such  an  old  man  as  this  to  be  your 
husband?"  "Indeed  I  do,"  she  said.  "Then,  by  the 
laws  of  God  and  this  commonwealth,"  was  the  discon- 
certing reply,  "I,  as  a  magistrate,  pronounce  you  man 
and  wife." 

Such  were  the  difficulties  that  beset  the  fathers  in 
their  attempt  to  steer  a  safe  middle  course  between  cere- 
monial and  common  law  marriage. 

During  the  "tyranny"  following  1686  the  laws  re- 
quiring marriage  by  civil  magistrate  were  abrogated. 
Referring  to  Charlestow^n,  Mr.  Edes  writes  that  the 
Reverend  Charles  Morton  "was  the  first  clergyman  in 
this  place  to  solemnize  marriages,  which  previously  to 
1686  were  performed  only  by  civil  magistrates." 

As  it  became  apparent  that  the  Reformation  church 
was  a  safe  constituent  of  the  new  economic  order,  dis- 
trust of  ecclesiastical  functionings  faded.  In  1692  (the 
year  Plymouth  was  merged  in  Massachusetts)  the 
clergy  were  first  authorized  by  the  new  province  to  per- 
form marriages.  The  following  is  found  for  Connecti- 
cut in  1694: 

This  court  for  the  satisfaction  of  such  as  are  conscientiously  de- 
sireous  to  be  marryed  by  the  minister  of  their  plantations  do 
grant  the  ordayned  ministers  of  the  severall  plantations  .  .  . 
liberty  to  joyne  in  marriage  such  persons  as  are  qualified  for 
the  same  according  to  law. 

Opposition  to  religious  ceremonial  abated  and  presently 
ministers  of  all  denominations  were  allowed  to  perform 


64         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

the  ceremony.  Neal  in  his  History  of  New  England 
wrote : 

All  marriages  in  New  England  were  formerly  performed  by  the 
civil  magistrate,  but  of  late  they  are  more  frequently  solemnized 
by  the  clerg}',  who  imitate  the  method  prescribed  by  the  church 
of  England  except  in  their  collects,  and  the  ceremony  of  the 
ring. 

Nevertheless  the  Puritan  contention  has  prevailed. 
Marriage  was  secularized  and  brought  under  control 
of  the  civil  law  and  to-day  when  a  minister  performs  the 
ceremony  it  is  as  an  agent  of  the  state  that  he  acts. 

The  settlers  in  the  New  World  gradually  introduced 
more  ceremony  and  gayety  into  their  weddings.  As- 
ceticism could  not  outlive  the  age  of  deficit.  In  wealthy 
families  a  handsome  outfit  was  usually  provided  for  the 
adornment  of  the  bride.  Rude  merriment  attended 
New  England  weddings.  There  was  sometimes  a 
scramble  for  the  bride's  garter.  The  winner  was  sup- 
posed to  gain  luck  and  speedy  marriage.  In  Marble- 
head  the  bridesmaids  and  groomsmen  put  the  newly 
married  pair  to  bed.  It  is  said  also  that  the  bridal 
chamber  was  the  scene  of  healths  drunk  and  prayers 
offered.  Judge  Sewall  was  slighted  on  one  occasion. 
He  says  that  "none  came  to  us"  (after  he  and  his  elder- 
ly bride  had  retired) .  This  usage  of  visiting  the  bridal 
chamber  was  doubtless  a  reminiscence  of  the  day  when 
every  marriage  w^as  a  tribal  concern  whose  issue  was 
vital  to  group  life. 

It  was  customary  to  allow  the  bride  to  choose  the  text 
of  the  sermon  on  the  Sabbath  when  she  appeared  as 
bride.  Brides  were  sometimes  commendably  clever  in 
this  matter.  Thus  Asa  Somebody  and  his  bride  were 
edified  by  a  discourse  on  the  words:  "And  Asa  did 
that  which  was  good  and  right  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord 
his  God."     Another  favorite  was:     "Two  are  better 


Courtship  and  Marriage  in  New  England      65 

than  one;  because  they  have  a  good  reward  for  their 
labor.  For  if  they  fall  the  one  will  lift  up  his  fellow; 
but  woe  to  him  that  is  alone  when  he  falleth;  for  he 
hath  not  another  to  help  him  up."  In  some  places  the 
bride  and  groom  seated  themselves  prominently  in  the 
gallery  and  in  the  midst  of  the  service  rose  and  rotated 
slowly  several  times  for  the  edification  of  the  congrega- 
tion. 

Even  the  small  number  of  negroes  in  New  England 
was  a  problem.  In  1705  in  Massachusetts  we  find  that 
intermarriage  between  a  white  person  and  a  negro  or 
mulatto  was  forbidden  by  statute  and  a  fine  of  fifty 
pounds  fixed  upon  any  person  officiating  at  such  mar- 
riage. It  was  also  ordered  that  "no  master  shall  un- 
reasonably deny  marriage  to  his  negro  with  one  of  the 
same  nation."  Masters  were  responsible  for  the  fines 
incurred  by  their  slaves  for  sex  offences ;  hence  it  might 
be  less  trouble  to  allow  regular  wedlock.  Common- 
law  marriage  seems  to  have  been  valid  but  there  were 
public  legal  marriages  among  Massachusetts  slaves. 
Their  banns  were  published  in  regular  form. 

The  dependence  of  negro  marriage  on  the  master's 
good  will  is  illustrated  by  a  bill  of  sale  of  a  negress  in 
Boston  in  1724  which  recites  that  "Whereas  Scipio,  of 
Boston  .  .  .  free  negro  .  .  .  purposes  mar- 
riage to  Margaret,  .  .  .  servant  of  .  .  .  Dor- 
cas Marshall:  now  to  the  intent  that  the  said  intended 
marriage  may  take  efi^ect,  and  that  the  said  Scipio  may 
enjoy  the  said  Margaret  without  any  interruption,"  etc. 
she  is  duly  sold  with  her  apparel  for  fifty  pounds. 

The  later  Massachusetts  act  (1786)  prohibiting  the 
marriage  of  whites  to  Indians,  negroes,  or  mulattoes 
and  declaring  such  marriages  void  was  not  repealed 
till  1843. 


66         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

There  were  throughout  New  England  regular  mar- 
riages of  white  men  with  Indian  women.  In  slavery 
days  in  Massachusetts  it  was  to  the  advantage  of  ne- 
groes to  take  Indian  wives  for  the  children  of  such 
unions  would  be  free. 

That  economic  interest  was  stronger  than  moral  sense 
in  the  hearts  of  the  fathers  is  shown  in  a  formula  for 
slave  marriage"  prepared  and  used  by  Reverend  Sam- 
uel Phillips  of  Andover  (1710-1771)  : 

You  S.  do  now  in  the  presence  of  God,  and  these  witnesses,  take 
R.  to  be  your  wife ;  promising  that  so  far  as  shall  be  consistent 
with  the  relation  which  you  now  sustain,  as  a  servant,  you  will 
perform  the  part  of  a  husband  towards  her;  and  in  particular 
3'ou  promise  that  you  w^ill  love  her;  and  that,  as  j^ou  shall  have 
the  opportunity'  and  ability  you  will  take  a  proper  care  of  her  in 
sickness  and  health,  in  prosperity  and  adversity;  and  that  you 
will  be  true  and  faithful  to  her,  and  will  cleave  to  her  only,  so 
long  as  God  in  his  Providence,  shall  continue  your  and  her 
abode  in  such  place  (or  places)  as  that  you  can  conveniently 
come  together. 

Similar  words  were  repeated  to  the  woman. 


*3  Howard.     History  of  Matrimonial  Institutions,  vol.   ii,  225-226. 


IV.    THE  NEW  ENGLAND  FAMILY- PRES- 
TIGE AND  FUNCTIONS 

To  the  Pilgrim  and  the  Puritan  the  home  and  the 
church  were  preeminent  treasures.  Yet  it  is  hard  to 
say  whether  family  or  property  constituted  the  Puritans' 
chief  treasure.     The  two  interests  interacted. 

The  early  Puritans  married  young.  Madam  Knight 
wrote  (1704)  of  Connecticut  youth :  "They  generally 
marry  very  young,  the  males  oftener  as  I  am  told  under 
twenty  years  than  above."  Girls  often  married  at  six- 
teen or  under.  Old  maids  were  ridiculed  or  even  de- 
spised. A  woman  became  an  "antient  maid"  at  twenty- 
five.  But  there  is  no  evidence  that  child  marriages,  so 
common  in  England  at  the  time,  were  ever  permitted  in 
America. 

A  man  or  woman,  however,  without  family  ties  was 
almost  unthinkable.  Such  an  anomaly  could  not  be 
tolerated.  Even  apart  from  the  weight  of  this  senti- 
ment, it  is  easy  to  see  that  marriage  would  be  almost 
the  only  honorable  refuge  for  a  woman.  But  New 
England  family  policy  pressed  as  heavily  upon  the  un- 
attached man  as  on  the  isolated  woman.  Bachelors 
were  rare  and  were  viewed  with  disapproval.  They 
were  almost  in  the  class  of  suspected  criminals.  They 
were  rarely  allowed  to  live  by  themselves  or  even  to 
choose  their  places  of  abode  but  had  to  live  wherever 
the  court  put  them.  A  Massachusetts  act  of  1631  for- 
bade hiring  any  person  for  less  than  a  year  unless  he 
were  a  "settled  housekeeper."     In  Hartford  solitary 


68         The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

men   were   taxed   twenty  shillings   a  week.     A  New 

Haven  law  runs  thus:  in  order  to 

Suppress  inconvenience,  and  disorders  inconsistent  with  the 
mind  of  God  in  the  fifth  commandment,  single  persons,  not  in 
service  or  dwellinjj;  with  their  relatives  are  forbidden  to  diet  or 
lodge  alone;  but  they  are  required  to  live  in  "licensed"  families; 
and  the  governors  of  such  families  are  ordered  to  "observe  the 
course,  carriage,  and  behavior  of  every  such  single  person, 
whether  he  or  she  walk  diligently  in  a  constant  lawful  employ- 
ment, attending  both  family  duties  and  the  public  worship  of 
God,  and  keeping  good  order  day  and  night  or  otherwise. 

Similar  measures  are  found  in  the  other  colonies. 
Bachelors  were  under  the  special  espionage  of  the  con- 
stable, the  watchman,  and  the  tithing-man.  There  was, 
moreover,  a  positive  premium  on  marriage  in  addition 
to  the  freedom  gained.  Many  towns  assigned  building 
lots  to  bachelors  upon  marriage.  It  is  not  strange  that 
bachelors  were  scarce. 

Old  maids,  too,  were  rare  and  hard-off.  The  ques- 
tion of  the  "aimless  and  homeless"  condition  of  single 
women  troubled  the  selectmen.  Grants  seem  to  have 
been  made  of  "maid's  lots"  but  the  policy  was  ques- 
tioned. In  1636  we  find  this  entry:  "Deborah  Holmes 
refused  land,  being  a  maid  (but  hath  four  bu.  of  corn 
granted  her.  .  .)  and  would  be  a  bad  precedent  to 
keep  house  alone."  Later  we  find  the  Bay  Colony  al- 
lowing single  women  to  follow  approved  callings.  But 
marriage  was,  normally,  prompt.  A  man  writing  from 
the  Piscataqua  colony  says,  "A  good  husband,  with  his 
wife  to  attend  the  cattle  and  make  butter  and  cheese  will 
be  profitable,  for  maids  they  are  soone  gonne  in  this 
countrie." 

There  were,  however,  a  few  notable  spinsters.  The 
Plymouth  church  record  of  March  19,  1667,  notes  the 
death  of  "Mary  Carpenter  sister  of  Mrs.  Alice  Brad- 


The  New  England  Family  69 

ford,  wife  of  Governor  Bradford,  being  newly  entered 

into  the  ninety-first  year  of  her  age.     She  was  a  godly 

old  maid  never  married." 

John  Dunton  wrote  in  glowing  terms  of  one  ideal 

"virgin." 

It  is  true  an  old  (or  superannuated)  maid  in  Boston  is  thought 
such  a  curse,  as  nothing  can  exceed  it  (and  looked  on  as  a  dismal 
spectacle)  yet  she  by  her  good  nature,  gravity,  and  strict  virtue 
convinces  all  (so  much  as  the  fleering  Beaus)  that  it  is  not  her 
necessity  but  her  choice  that  keeps  her  a  virgin.  She  is  now 
about  thirty  years  (the  age  which  they  call  a  thornback)  yet  she 
never  disguises  herself,  and  talks  as  little  as  she  thinks  of  love. 

This  maid  must  have  been  very  singular  to  deserve  as 
much  space  as  she  received.  The  eulogist  dilates  at 
length  on  her  modesty  and  propriety.  "She  would 
neither  anticipate  nor  contradict  the  will  of  her  par- 
ents" and  "is  against  forcing  her  own,  by  marrying 
where  she  can  not  love;  and  that  is  the  reason  she  is  still 
a  virgin." 

Taunton,  Massachusetts,  was  founded  by  an  "ancient 
maid"  of  forty-eight.  Winthrop's  Journal  for  1637 
contains  this  item:  "This  year  a  plantation  begun  at 
Tichcutt  by  ...  an  ancient  maid,  one  Mrs.  Poole. 
She  went  late  thither  and  endured  much  hardship  and 
lost  much  cattle." 

In  case  of  the  decease  of  husband  or  wife  remarriage  . 
was  prompt.  The  first  marriage  in  Plymouth  colony 
was  that  of  Edward  Winslow,  who  had  been  a  widower 
only  seven  weeks,  to  Susanna  White  who  had  been  a 
widow  not  twelve  weeks.  The  case  was  exceptional 
but  in  the  new  land  there  was  no  place  for  ceremonial 
mourning  in  such  a  case.  It  was  fitting  that  Winslow 
should  be  at  the  head  of  a  household  and  the  White 
children  needed  a  father  especially  as  their  mother  was 
taken  up  with  the  care  of  an  infant.  Later  the  governor 


70         The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

of  New  Hampshire  married  a  lady  whose  husband  was 
but  ten  days  dead.  Such  frequent  and  hasty  espousals 
were  not  altogether  due  to  the  impossible  condition  of  a 
man  or  woman  without  a  partner  in  the  midst  of  a  wil- 
derness with  all  the  families  fully  occupied  in  caring 
for  their  own.     They  were  common  in  England. 

A  few  concrete  cases  of  colonial  remarriage  will 
make  the  usage  vivid.  Peter  Sargent,  a  rich  Boston 
merchant,  had  three  wives.  His  second  had  had  two 
previous  husbands.  His  third  wife  had  lost  one  hus- 
band, and  she  survived  Peter,  and  also  her  third  hus- 
band, who  had  three  wives.  His  father  had  four,  the 
last  three  of  whom  were  widows.  One  reverend  gentle- 
man, facing  death,  confidently  told  his  wife  that  she 
would  soon  be  well  provided  for.  "She  was  very  short- 
ly after  very  honorably  and  comfortably  married  unto  a 
gentleman  of  good  estate"  and  lived  with  him  nearly 
two  score  years. 

"Mistress"  was  attached  to  the  names  even  of  young 
girls.  This  usage  makes  it  hard  sometimes  to  ascer- 
tain whether  a  bride  was  a  widow.  But  it  is  certain 
that  widows  were  at  a  premium  in  colonial  days.  Per- 
haps the  principal  reason  for  this  fact  was  the  one  in- 
dicated in  the  previous  chapter  in  the  discussion  of  ec- 
onomic marriage.  It  is  hard  to  explain  otherwise-^hy 
men  passed  by  the  maidens  and  took  the  widows.  And 
among  these  there  was  room  to  choose,  for  the  number 
of  colonial  widows  was  huge.  In  1698  it  was  said  that 
Boston  was  full  of  widows  and  orphans,  many  of  them 
very  helpless.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  the  helpless  ones 
went  longest  desolate.  Their  miserable  condition  em- 
phasized again  the  importance  of  normal  family  con- 
nections. So  we  need  not  be  surprised  to  find  a  choice 
widow  whose  love  for  her  departed  husband  was  reput- 
ed to  be  "strong  as  death"  speedily  marrying  again. 


The  New  England  Family  71 

So  important  was  proper  family  relation  that  persons 
living  apart  from  their  spouses  were  sometimes  ordered 
to  get  their  partners  or  clear  out.  The  well-being  of 
the  community  was  conceived  to  depend  on  rigid  fam- 
ily discipline  and  if  a  man  had  no  family  he  must  find 
one.  Thus  New  England  law  provided  that  "married 
persons  must  live  together,  unless  the  court  of  assistants 
approve  of  the  cause  to  the  contrary."  In  Rhode  Is- 
land in  1655  we  find  it  "ordered  that  Thomas  Gennings 
shall  go  and  demand  his  wife  to  live  with  him,  but  in 
case  she  refuse,  he  shall  make  his  addresse  to  the  Gen- 
erall  Court  of  Commissioners  for  redresse  in  the  case." 
In  1660  the  Connecticut  court  ordered 

That  noe  man  or  woman,  within  this  colony  who  hath  a  wife  or 
husband  in  forraigne  parts,  shall  live  here  above  two  years,  upon 
penalty  of  40s.  per  month  upon  every  such  offender  and  any  that 
have  been  above  three  years  already,  not  to  remaine  within  this 
colony  above  one  yeare  longer  upon  the  same  penalty,  except 
they  have  liberty  from  the  General  Court. 

It  was  not  uncommon  for  immigrants  to  leave  their 
spouses  in  Europe.  Sometimes,  as  we  shall  see  later, 
this  was  simple  desertion,  but  by  no  means  always. 
Thus  a  letter  from  England  to  Mr.  Gibb  in  Piscataquay 
reads : 

I  hope  by  this  both  your  wives  are  with  you  according  to  your 
desire.  I  wish  all  your  wives  were  with  you,  and  that  so  many 
of  you  as  desire  wives  had  such  as  they  desire.  Your  wife, 
Roger  Knight's  wife,  and  one  wife  more  we  have  already  sent 
you  and  more  you  shall  have  as  you  have  wish  for  them. 

Occasionally  a  wife  was  disinclined  to  come  to  Amer- 
ica.    Governor  Winthrop  wrote  to  England  in  1632: 

I  have  much  difficultye  to  keepe  John  Galope  heere  by  reason 
his  wife  will  not  come.  I  marvayle  at  her  womans  weaknesse, 
that  she  will  live  myserably  with  her  children  there  when  she 
might  live  comfortably  with  her  husband  here.  I  pray  per- 
swade  and  further  her  coming  by  all  means.     If  she  will  come 


72         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

let  her  have  the  remainder  of  his  wages,  if  not  let  it  be  bestowed 
to  bring  over  his  children  for  soe  he  desires. 

Reverend  Mr.  Wilson  had  a  hard  time  persuading  his 
wife  to  cross.  Even  a  cleverly  interpreted  dream  did 
not  avail.  He  sent  back  comfortable  reports,  and  fi- 
nally recrossed  the  ocean  after  her.  Then,  after  much 
fasting  and  prayer,  she  finally  agreed  to  "accompany 
him  over  an  ocean  to  a  wilderness."  These  cases  were 
not  typical.  Wives  were  ordinarily  willing  to  try  the 
new  world. 

It  is  evident  that  the  family  w^as  regarded  as  an  in- 
strument to  be  used  deliberately  by  the  community  for 
social  welfare. 

In  the  colonial  records  of  Connecticut  (1643),  it  is 
declared  that 

The  prsprit\'  and  well  being  of  Comon  weles  doth  much  dep>end 
vvpon  the  well  gouerment  and  ordering  of  prticuler  Familyes, 
wch  in  an  ordinary  way  cannot  be  expected  when  the  rules  of 
God  are  neglected  in  laying  the  foundation  of  a  family  state. 

In  Massachusetts  during  the  period  between  1660 
and  1672,  it  was  ordered  that 

[The]  selectmen  of  every  town,  in  the  several  precincts  and 
quarters  wher  they  dwell,  shall  have  a  vigilant  eye  over  their 
brethren  and  neighbors  to  see,  first  that  none  of  them  shall 
suffer  so  much  barbarism  in  any  of  their  families,  as  not  to 
endeavor  to  teach  .  .  .  their  children  and  apprentices  so 
much  learning  as  may  enable  them  perfectly  to  read  the  English 
tongue  and  knowledge  of  the  capital  laws. 

Once  a  week  children  and  apprentices  are  to  be  cate- 
chized "in  the  grounds  and  principles  of  religion"  and 
they  are  to  be  bred  and  brought  up  in  some  honest  law- 
ful calling  "profitable  for  themselves  and  the  common- 
wealth," if  their  parents  "will  not  or  can  not  train  them 
up  in  learning  to  fit  them  for  higher  employments." 
Neglect  of  parental  duty  "whereby  children  and  ser- 


The  New  England  Family  73 

vants  become  rude,  stubborn  and  unruly"  is  penalized 
by  the  removal  of  the  children  into  better  hands  until 
they  come  of  age.  It  seems  that  the  law  was  for  a  time 
unenforced,  "sin  and  prophaness"  increased  "and  the 
ensnaring  of  many  children  and  servants  by  the  disso- 
lute lives  and  practices  of  such  as  do  live  from  under 
family  government."  The  laws  were  ordered  enforced 
and  a  list  to  be  made  of  young  persons  living  "from  un- 
der family  government,  viz.,  do  not  serve  their  parents 
or  masters  as  children,  apprentices,  hired  servants,  or 
journeymen  ought  to  do,  and  usually  did  in  our  native 
country,  being  subject  to  their  commands  and  disci- 
pline." Masters  and  heads  of  families  were  to  take 
effectual  care  that  their  children  and  servants  did  not 
violate  the  Sabbath  laws.  Selectmen  were  to  see  to  it 
that  parents  educated  their  children,  for  "many  parents 
and  masters  are  too  indulgent  and  negligent  of  their 
duty." 

Plymouth  also  took  action :  "Forasmuch  as  the  good 
education  of  children  and  youth  is  of  singular  benefit 
and  use  to  any  commonwealth;  and  whereas  many  par- 
ents and  masters  either  through  an  over  respect  to  their 
own  occasions  and  business  or  not  duly  considering  the 
good  of  their  children  and  servants,  have  too  much 
neglected  their  duty  in  their  education,"  parents  are  to 
be  watched  so  that  they  properly  teach  their  children. 
If  after  admonition  and  repeated  fine  negligent  parents 
did  not  improve,  the  children  were  to  be  taken  away 
and  placed  with  masters  where  they  would  receive 
training  and  government.  It  should  be  remembered 
in  this  connection  that  the  Plymouth  people  for  a  long 
period  were  in  bondage  to  the  capitalists  that  financed 
the  original  expedition,  and  consequently  had  to  absorb 


74         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

all  their  energies  in  a  sordid  struggle  for  material  inter- 
ests.    But  pioneer  life  puts  a  damper  on  culture. 

In  the  records  of  Connecticut  (1665-1677)  we  find 
the  following: 

Whereas  reading  the  Scripture,  cattechizing  of  children  and 
dayly  prayer  with  giueing  of  thanks  is  part  of  God's  worship  and 
the  homage  due  to  him,  to  be  atended  conscientiously  by  euery 
Christian  family  to  distinguish  them  from  the  heathen  whoe 
call  not  upon  God,  and  the  neglect  of  it  a  great  sin  .  .  . 
this  court  do  solemnly  recommend  it  to  the  ministry  in  all 
places,  to  look  into  the  state  of  such  famalyes,  convince  them  of 
and  instruct  them  in  their  duty  [etc.  Townsmen  were  to  as- 
sist ministers]  but  if  any  heads  or  gouernors  of  such  famalys 
shall  be  obstinate  and  refractorie  and  will  not  be  reformed,  that 
the  grand  jury  present  such  person  to  the  county  court  to  be 
fined  or  punished  or  bownd  to  good  behavior,  according  to  the 
demeritts  of  the  case. 

The  tithing-man  was  the  censor  of  New  England 
family  life.  His  power  entered  every  home.  He 
looked  after  family  morals  and  saw  to  the  main- 
tenance of  family  government,  that  all  single  per- 
sons were  attached  to  some  family,  that  children  and 
servants  were  properly  taught  and  trained  at  home  and 
kept  from  disorderly  and  rude  practices  abroad.  By  a 
town  order  of  Dorchester  in  1678  it  was  required  "that 
the  tithing  men  in  their  severall  precincts  should  in- 
spect all  inmates  that  do  come  into  each  of  their  pre- 
cincts either  single  persons  or  families,  and  to  give 
spedy  information  thereof  unto  the  selectmen  from  time 
to  time  or  to  some  of  them  that  order  may  be  taken 
about  them." 

Under  such  supervision  it  was  a  risky  thing  to  have 
visitors.  The  harboring  of  strangers,  even  relatives 
from  other  places,  often  brought  difficulty  between  citi- 
zens and  magistrates  and  frequently  caused  arbitration 
between  towns.    Thus,  in  Connecticut,  "Goodman  Hunt 


The  New  England  Family  75 

and  his  wife,  for  keeping  the  counsels  of  the  said  Wil- 
liam Harding,  baking  him  a  pasty  and  plum  cakes, 
and  keeping  company  with  him  on  the  Lord's  day,  and 
she  suffering  Harding  to  kiss  her,"  were  ordered  to  be 
sent  out  of  town  "within  one  month  after  the  date  here- 
of, yea,  in  a  shorter  time  if  any  miscarriage  be  found  in 
them."  A  Dorchester  widow  was  not  allowed  to  enter- 
tain a  visiting  son-in-law.  Another  woman  was  fined 
in  1671  "under  distress"  for  housing  her  own  daughter 
tho  the  latter  (a  married  woman)  said  the  bad  weather 
kept  her  from  home. 

This  prying  authority  would  have  been  resented  by 
as  keen  a  people  as  the  New  Englanders  had  it  been  im- 
posed by  external  authority.  In  later  days  they  quickly 
remembered  the  English  maxim,  "every  man's  house 
his  castle."  James  Otis  in  his  speech  on  writs  of  assis- 
tance said,  "One  of  the  most  essential  branches  of  Eng- 
lish liberty  is  the  freedom  of  one's  house.  A  man's 
house  is  his  castle;  and  whilst  he  is  quiet  is  as  well 
guarded  as  a  prince  in  his  castle.  This  writ  would 
totally  annihilate  this  privilege."  One  can  imagine  the 
indignation  when  an  officer  whom  Justice  Walley  had 
summoned  for  breach  of  the  Sabbath  used  his  power  to 
search  that  dignitary's  house  from  cellar  to  attic.  Prob- 
ably even  the  building  laws  imposed  by  the  local  au- 
thorities for  fire-protection  would  have  been  looked  at 
askance  if  they  had  been  imposed  by  an  alien  power. 

The  reader  has,  of  course,  noted  the  religious  cast  of 
the  family  function.  The  fathers  adopted  the  maxim 
that  "families  are  the  nurseries  of  the  church  and  the 
commonwealth;  ruin  families  and  you  ruin  all."  The 
maintenance  of  family  religion  was  universally  recog- 
nized in  early  New  England  as  a  duty  and  was  seriously 
attended  to  in  most  families.     Daily  the  scriptures  were 


76         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

read  and  worship  was  offered  to  God.  Fathers  sought 
for  their  children,  as  for  themselves,  "first  the  kingdom 
of  God  and  His  righteousness"  (which,  somehow,  un- 
fortunately for  morality,  seemed  to  sanction  forms  of 
sin  that  filled  the  pocketbook).  The  religious  influence 
pervaded  family,  school,  society.  Yet  as  early  as  1679 
a  ''Reforming  Synod"  at  Boston  said,  "Family  Worship 
is  much  neglected"  and  by  1691  a  lament  arose  over  the 
decay  of  piety  and  family  religion.  This  was  just  one 
year  after  the  appearance  of  the  New  England  Primer 
which  w^as  certainly  calculated  to  stem  such  a  tide  of 
evil.  Catechism  learning  was  enforced  by  law.  But 
even  in  1716  Mather  thought  it  necessary,  in  the  assem- 
bly of  ministers,  to  "propose  a  motion  .  .  .  that  no 
family  in  the  country  be  without  a  Bible  and  a  cate- 
chism; and  that  all  children  of  a  fitt  age,  be  found  able 
to  read." 

Theophilus  Eaton,  first  governor  of  New  Haven,  was 
a  shining  example  of  the  true  patriarch. 

As  in  his  government  of  the  commonwealth,  so  in  the  govern- 
ment of  his  family,  he  was  prudent,  serious,  happy  to  a  wonder  ; 
and  altho  he  sometimes  had  a  large  family,  consisting  of  no  less 
than  thirty  persons,  yet  he  managed  them  with  such  an  even 
temper,  that  observers  have  affirmed  that  they  never  saw  a 
house  ordered  with  more  wisdom.  He  kept  an  honorable  and 
hospitable  table;  but  one  thing  that  made  the  entertainment 
thereof  the  better,  was  the  continual  presence  of  his  aged  mother, 
by  feeding  of  whom  with  an  exemplary  piety  till  she  died,  he  in- 
sured his  own  prosperity  as  long  as  he  lived.  His  children  and 
servants  he  mightily  encouraged  in  the  study  of  the  scriptures, 
and  countenanced  their  addresses  to  himself  with  any  of  their 
inquiries ;  but  when  he  saw  any  of  them  sinfully  negligent  about 
the  concerns  either  of  their  general  or  particular  callings,  he 
would  admonish  them  with  such  a  penetrating  efficacy,  that  they 
could  scarce  forbear  falling  down  at  his  feet  with  tears.  A 
word  from  him  was  enough  to  steer  them. 


The  New  England  Family  77 

Special  laws  for  the  further  safeguarding  of  the  fam- 
ily may  be  mentioned.  For  years  the  general  court  of 
Massachusetts  acted  as  guardian  of  widows  and  or- 
phans. The  Body  of  Liberties  decreed  that  "no  man 
shall  be  deprived  of  his  wife  or  children  .  .  .  un- 
less by  virtue  of  some  express  law  of  the  country  estab- 
lished by  the  General  Court  and  sufficiently  published." 

But  the  laws  were  not  solely  in  the  interest  of  the  in- 
dividuals afifected.  The  Plymouth  colony  ordered  that 
"no  one  be  allowed  to  be  housekeepers  .  .  .  till 
such  time  as  they  be  allowed  and  approved  by  the  gov- 
ernor and  councill;"  also  "no  servant  coming  out  of  his 
time  or  other  single  person  [is]  suffered  to  keep  house 
or  be  for  him  or  themselves  till  .  .  .  competently 
provided  of  arms  and  ammunition  according  to  the 
orders  of  the  colony."  In  case  of  certain  youthful 
offenders  Massachusetts  ordered  (1645)  that  "their 
parents  or  masters  shall  give  them  due  correction  and 
that  in  the  presence  of  some  officer  if  any  magistral 
shall  so  appoint."     Again,  1668, 

This  court  taking  notice,  upon  good  information  and  sad  com- 
plaints, that  there  are  some  persons  in  this  jurisdiction,  that 
have  families  to  provide  for,  who  greatly  neglect  their  callings, 
or  misspend  what  they  earn,  whereby  their  families  are  in  much 
want,  and  are  thereby  exposed  to  suffer,  and  to  need  relief  from 
others,  This  court  for  remedy  of  these  great  and  unsuflferable 
evils,  do  declare  that  .  .  .  such  neglectors  of  families  are 
comprehended  among  [such  idle  persons  as  are  subject  to  the 
house  of  correction]. 

Such  legislation  is  an  interesting  rival  of  maximum 
wage  laws  as  is  also  the  provision  of  1703- 1704  that 
children  of  parents  unable  to  maintain  them  are  to  be 
bound  out. 

In  spite  of  legal  subordination  and  occasional  actual 
sacrifice  to  the  public  interest  the  New  England  family 


78         The  American  Family  -Colonial  Period 

was  not  without  individuality.  One  of  the  causes  of 
the  failure  of  the  early  communism  lies  right  here. 
The  yong-men  that  were  most  able  and  fitte  for  labor  and 
service  did  repine  that  they  should  spend  their  time  and  strength 
to  work  for  other  men's  wives  and  children  without  any  recom- 
pense. .  .  And  for  men's  wives  to  be  commanded  to  do  ser- 
vice for  other  men,  as  dressing  their  meate,  washing  their 
cloathes,  etc.,  they  deemed  it  a  kind  of  slaverie;  neither  could 
many  husbands  well  brooke  it. 

After  assignments  of  land  were  made  to  each  household 
"Women  and  children  helped  plant  the  family  lots, 
altho  they  would  have  considered  it  a  great  hardship  to 
work  in  the  common  field." 

The  Puritan  censorship  of  family  life  was  enforced 
by  the  arm  of  the  law.  But  the  Quakers,  who  could 
not  control  the  civil  power,  maintained  ecclesiastical 
oversight  in  behalf  of  moral  training,  sectarian  sol- 
idarity and  exclusiveness,  parental  control  over  court- 
ship, and  general  propriety  as  in  the  following  query: 
"Do  no  widows  admit  proposals  of  marage  too  early 
after  the  death  of  their  former  husbands,  or  from  wid- 
owers sooner  after  the  death  of  a  former  wife  than  is 
consistent  with  decency?" 

The  New  England  aristocracy  possessed  marked 
pride  of  family.  Sumptuary  laws  were  designed  to 
maintain  the  distinction  between  rich  and  poor.  One 
law  provided  that  the  wearing  of  gold  or  silver  orna- 
ments, silk  ribbons,  etc.  should  cause  assessment  at  one 
hundred  fifty  pounds.  The  law  exempted  families  of 
magistrates  or  "such  whose  quality  and  estate  have  been 
above  the  ordinary  degree  tho  now  decayed." 

Ministers'  families  almost  constituted  a  nobility. 
John  Adams,  who  was  only  the  son  of  a  small,  middle- 
class  farmer,  met  with  opposition  from  members  of  the 
flock  of  the  minister  whose  daughter  he  was  courting. 


The  New  England  Family  79 

The  Adams  family  was  thought  scarcely  fit  to  match 
with  the  minister's  daughter,  the  descendant  of  so  many 
worthies.  It  so  happened  that  her  father  was  well  dis- 
posed to  the  young  man  and  after  the  ceremony  had  oc- 
curred saw  fit  to  deliver  an  "Apology"  from  the  text, 
"John  came  neither  eating  bread  nor  drinking  wine, 
and  ye  say:  'He  hath  a  devil.'" 

True  to  their  noble  rank  the  reverend  families  tended 
to  marry  into  each  other.  For  a  century  and  a  half 
such  marriages  were  very  numerous.  It  seemed  to  be 
according  to  social  propriety  for  ministers'  sons  to 
marry  ministers'  daughters.  Pastors  often  married  into 
the  family  of  their  predecessors -often  the  daughter, 
sometimes  the  widow.  Many  families  may  be  cited  as 
exhibits  of  interrelationship  among  ministers.  The 
"Mather  Dynasty"  is  a  conspicuous  case  in  point.  Rich- 
ard Mather's  second  wife  was  the  widow  of  John  Cotton. 
Their  children,  Increase  Mather  and  Mary  Cotton, 
were  as  brother  and  sister  but  were  married  and  became 
the  parents  of  Cotton  Mather.  The  sons,  grandsons, 
and  great-grandsons  of  Richard  Mather  entered  the 
ministry.  The  girls  in  the  same  generations  married 
ministers.  Thus  the  Mather  blood  fertilized  the  re- 
mote quarters  of  New  England. 

Family  integrity  reached  beyond  death.  Much  so- 
licitude was  felt  by  the  New  England  people  for  the 
salvation  of  kindred.  In  many  communities  each  fam- 
ily had  a  burying-place  on  the  home-farm.  Thus  the 
dust  of  the  dead  consecrated  the  family  devotion  and 
the  ancestral  home  of  the  living.  Sewall  considered  a 
visit  to  the  family  tomb  and  the  sight  of  the  cofiins  in  it 
an  "awful  yet  pleasing  treat"  and  Joseph  Eliot  said 
"that  the  two  days  wherein  he  buried  his  wife  and  son 
were  the  best  he  ever  had  in  the  world." 


8o         The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

In  the  rapid  expansion  of  New  England  families 
there  developed  a  tendency  to  the  formation  of  patri- 
archal clans.  Aubury  noted  the  great  number  of  half- 
finished  houses.  A  man  would  build  and  occupy  half 
of  the  structure;  when  his  son  married,  the  new  couple 
finished  and  moved  into  the  other  half.  The  families 
were  thus  separate,  yet  united  by  the  common  shelter- 
ing roof.  Often,  too,  as  already  suggested,  the  family 
circle  was  expanded  into  a  real  "familia."  In  the 
household  of  the  prosperous  Massachusetts  merchant 
were  indentured  servants,  male  and  female,  generally 
young,  working  out  their  time.  Wage  employees,  even 
those  used  in  his  business,  commonly  ate  at  his  family 
table,  and  lived  under  his  roof.  All  such  were,  of 
course,  under  the  paternal  care  of  the  house-father. 
Besides  these,  were  unattached  female  relatives,  who 
often  lived  with  their  kindred. 

Careful  as  the  new  Americans  were  of  their  own 
families,  and  censorious  as  the  aristocracy  was  of  the 
families  of  the  hard-pressed  plebeians,  they  found  them- 
selves unable  (or  unwilling)  to  safe-guard  the  family 
relations  of  their  slaves.  Slavery  can  scarcely  respect 
the  family  integrity  of  the  servile  class.  Aside  from 
the  lust  of  males  of  the  master  race,  is  the  economic  mo- 
tive that  severs  families  for  business  reasons.  Sewall, 
who  was  sufficiently  cool-blooded  in  his  own  matri- 
monial ventures,  was  distressed  at  the  thought  of  "how 
in  taking  negroes  out  of  Africa  and  selling  of  them 
here,  that  which  God  has  joined  together  men  do  boldly 
rend  asunder;  men  from  their  country,  husbands  from 
their  wives,  parents  from  their  children."  Nor  did  the 
process  end  with  the  voyage  from  Africa.  There  was 
really  no  protection  of  marriage  or  sanction  of  marital 
or  parental  rights  and  duties.     Who  could  be  depended 


The  New  England  Family  8 1 

on  to  vindicate  the  slave  if  the  whim  of  a  master  ''un- 
reasonably" denied  marriage?  The  owner  of  a  valu- 
able female  slave  had  to  consider  the  risks  of  mother- 
hood as  compared  with  the  accession  of  a  slave  child 
which  would  be  little  worth.  And  as  for  males  Sewall 
refers  to  the  well-known  temptation  masters  have  to 
connive  at  their  fornication  lest  they  should  have  to  find 
wives  for  them  or  pay  their  fines.  And  it  is  certain  that, 
in  spite  of  Puritan  regard  for  parenthood  and  the  care 
of  children,  they  separated  mothers  from  their  off- 
spring. 

One  Massachusetts  town  hands  down  in  tradition  the 
memory  of   "raising  slaves   for  market.""     But  the 
breeding  of  slaves  was  not,  in  general,  regarded  favor- 
ably in  that  colony.    It  seems  to  have  been  unprofitable. 
Negro  children  were,  indeed,  sold  by  the  pound  but  the    . 
market  was  sadly  sluggish,  for  negro  babies  were  adver- 
tised in  Boston  to  be  given  away  like  puppies  and  some-   ' 
times  money  was  offered  to  any  one  that  would  take 
them.*^     Thus  economic  interest  hoodwinked  the  Cal- 
vinist  conscience  as  it  always  hoodwinks  or  swamps  the    • 
conscience  of  the  master  class  in  matters  of  class  dom- 
inance. 

Some  show  must,  of  course,  be  made  of  approxi- 
mating the  relations  of  the  disinherited  to  those  of  the 
privileged  class.  Thus  in  1745  a  negro  slave  obtained 
a  divorce  for  his  wife's  adultery  (with  a  white  man) 
and  in  1758  the  Superior  Court  decided  that  a  child  of 
a  female  slave  "never  married  according  to  any  of  the 
forms  prescribed  by  the  laws  of  the  land"  by  another  • 
slave  who  "had  kept  her  company  with  her  master's 

**  Moore.     Notes  on  the  History  of  Slavery  in  Massachusetts,  69. 
*°  Earle.     Customs  and  Fashions  in  Old  Neiv  England,  89;  Moore,  op.  cit., 
57- 


82         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

consent"  was  not  a  bastard.     The  reader  will  recall  the 
mockery  of  slave  marriage  previously  mentioned. 

Slavery  never  took  deep  root  in  New  England.  The 
climate  was  against  it.  The  fewness  of  the  negroes 
tended  to  make  race  questions  less  urgent  than  in  the 
South.  Some  of  the  farmers  ate  with  their  slaves. 
Madam  Knight  complained  that  in  Connecticut  slaves 
were  allowed  to  sit  and  eat  with  the  masters.  "Into  the 
dish  goes  the  black  hoof  as  freely  as  the  white  hand." 
Hawthorne  says  concerning  the  slaves  of  New  England : 

They  were  not  excluded  from  the  domestic  affections;  in  fam- 
ilies of  middling  rank,  they  had  their  places  at  the  board;  and 
when  the  circle  closed  around  the  evening  hearth  its  blaze 
glowed  on  their  dark  shining  faces,  intermixed  familiarly  with 
their  master's  children. 

But  the  system  was  evil  at  best,  and  did  violence  to 
the  fundamentals  of  morality.  There  might  be  cause  to 
wonder  that  the  subordinating  of  the  marital  interests 
and  family  ties  of  the  servile  class  to  monetary  consid- 
erations did  not  demoralize  the  family  institutions  of 
the  masters,  were  it  not  that  bourgeois  marriage  is 
itself  an  economic  institution  subordinating  love  to 
money,  and  further  that  in  a  society  marked  by  class 
cleavage  each  social  level  preserves  its  own  ethic,  more 
or  less  distinct  and  insulated  from  that  of  the  other 
classes.  And  we  need  only  note  the  present-day  phe- 
nomenon of  "the  divided  conscience"  in  order  to  appre- 
ciate the  incongruities  that  economic  interest  can  per- 
petrate. The  colonial  conscience  was  able  to  witness 
even  the  shocking  system  of  white  servitude  with  its 
ruinous  effects.  Massachusetts  tried  to  sell  children  of 
Quakers  to  Barbadoes  but  could  find  no  shipmaster  base 
enough  to  take  them.*'' 


*^  Moore,  op.  cit.,  33. 


V.    THE  POSITION  OF  WOMEN  IN  THE 
NEW  ENGLAND  COLONIAL  FAMILY 

The  rigors  and  dangers  of  pioneer  life  constit 
colonial  New  England  a  man's  world.  Life  condi 
allowed  a  type  of  patriarchism  that  found  affinity  in  the/ 
Old  Testament  regime.  Views  as  to  proper  relation* 
between  husband  and  wife,  parent  and  child,  or  be- 
tween man  and  maid  before  marriage,  came  directly 
from  the  scriptures,  as  for  example  Calvin's  views 
quoted  in  an  introductory  chapter.  Byington  thinks 
that  "The  Courtship  of  Miles  Standish"  gives  us  a  very 
correct  picture  of  the  social  and  family  life  of  the  Pil- 
grims. The  proxy  wooing  suggests  the  patriarchal 
story  of  Isaac. 

Inasmuch  as  the  husband  was  the  patriarch,  woman  | 
found  in  matrimony  but  limited  freedom.  Sewall  re-  | 
ports  a  wedding  address  by  Mr.  Noyes  in  which  he  said 
that:  "Love  was  the  sugar  to  sweeten  every  condition 
in  the  married  relation."  It  is  to  be  feared  that  there 
was  no  superabundance  of  sugar  in  the  Puritan  domestic 
economy.  An  excess  of  male  despotism  is  more  prob- 
able. One  man  that  abused  his  wife  asserted  in  good 
ancestral  phrase  that  she  was  his  servant  and  slave. 

Woman  was  indeed  "a  sweet  sex"  but  her  sphere  was 
narrow.  Altho  it  was  a  woman  that  gave  the  first  plot 
of  ground  for  a  free  school  in  Massachusetts,  education 
even  in  common  schools  was  withheld  from  girls  until 
it  was  found  necessary  to  allow  them  to  attend  during 
the  summer  (while  the  boys  were  busy  fishing)  in  or- 


84         The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

der  to  hold  school  moneys.*'  One  Connecticut  town 
voted  not  to  "waste"  any  of  its  money  in  educating 
girls.''*  One  small  maiden  sat  for  hours  daily  on  the 
schoolhouse  steps  in  order  to  catch  as  much  as  possible 
of  the  lessons  going  on  inside.  By  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century  girls  were  sometimes  sent  to  the  city 
to  finishing  school.  In  1788  Northampton  voted  not 
to  spend  any  money  on  the  education  of  girls.  It  was 
well  into  the  nineteenth  century  before  the  New  Eng- 
landers  thought  education  for  girls  desirable.  Mrs. 
John  Adams  said:  "It  was  fashionable  to  ridicule  fe- 
male learning.  .  .  Female  education  in  the  best 
families  went  no  further  than  writing  and  arithmetic; 
in  some  few  and  rare  instances,  music  and  dancing." 
Woman's  only  chance  for  much  intellectual  improve- 
ment was  to  be  found  in  occasional  contact  with  the 
learned,  and  in  the  families  of  the  educated  class.  The 
only  useful  instruction  in  practical  afifairs  was  received 
from  the  mother.  When  Governor  Winthrop's  wife 
lost  her  mind  her  Puritan  women  friends  attributed  the 
calamity  to  her  desertion  of  her  domestic  duties  and 
meddling  in  man's  sphere.  Governor  Winthrop  be- 
lieved that  the  young  wife  of  the  governor  of  Connec- 
ticut had  gone  insane  "by  occasion  of  giving  herself 
wholly  to  reading  and  writing."  Had  she  "not  gone 
out  of  her  way  and  calling  to  meddle  in  such  things  as 
are  proper  for  men,  whose  minds  are  stronger,  etc.,  she 
had  kept  her  wits,  and  might  have  improved  them  use- 
fully and  honorably  in  the  place  God  had  set  her." 

There  were,  indeed,  during  the  colonial  period  some 
women  conspicuous  for  their  brilliancy  and  mental  at- 
tainments; but  their  field  was  cramped.    The  principal 

*'■  Gage.  Woman,  Church,  and  State,  407. 
*^  Scribner's  Magazine,  vol.  1,  762. 


Women  in  the  New  England  Family  85 

charge  against  Mrs.  Hutchinson  was  that  she  had,  con- 
trary to  Paul,  presumed  to  instruct  men.  Anne  Brad- 
street,  daughter  of  Govejrnor  Dudley  and  wife  of  a  gov- 
ernor, the  mother  of  eight  children,  and  a  faithful  per- 
former of  household  and  social  duties,  felt  the  pressure 
when  she  essayed  to  write  poetry.    She  says : 

I  am  obnoxious  to  each  carping  tongue  ^ 

Who  says  my  hand  a  needle  better  fits, 

A  poets  pen  all  scorn  I  should  thus  wrong, 
For  such  despite  they  cast  on  female  wits : 

If  what  I  do  prove  well,  it  won't  advance, 

They'l  say  it 's  stoln,  or  else  it  was  by  chance. 

Let  Greeks  be  Greeks,  and  women  what  they  are 
Men  have  precedency  and  still  excell, 

It  is  but  vain  unjustly  to  wage  warre: 
Men  can  do  best,  and  women  know  it  well 

Preheminence  in  all  and  each  is  yours; 

Yet  grant  some  small  acknowledgement  of  ours. 

In  such  an  atmosphere  it  is  not  strange  if,  as  Fisher  says 
of  the  colonies  in  general,  "Married  women  usually  be- 
came prudes  and  retired  from  all  amusements  and 
pleasures." 

Mrs.  Adams  writing  in  1778  says:  "I  regret  the 
trifling,  narrow,  contracted  education  of  the  females  of 
my  own  country."    She  quotes  some  writer  thus: 

If  women  are  to  be  esteemed  our  enemies,  methinks  it  is  an  ig- 
noble cowardice,  thus  to  disarm  them,  and  not  allow  them  the 
same  weapons  we  use  ourselves ;  but  if  they  deserve  the  titles  of 
our  friends,  'tis  an  inhuman  tyranny  to  debar  them  of  the  priv- 
ileges of  ingenuous  education,  which  would  also  render  their 
friendship  so  much  the  more  delightful  to  themselves  and 
us.  .  .  Their  senses  are  generally  as  quick  as  ours;  their 
reason  as  nervous,  their  judgment  as  mature  and  solid.  .  . 
Nor  need  we  fear  to  lose  our  empire  over  them  by  thus  improv- 
ing their  native  abilities;  since,  where  there  is  most  learning, 


86         The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

sense,  and  knowledge,  there  is  always  observed  to  be  the  most 
modest}^  and  rectitude  of  manners. 

John  Adams  expressed  his  belief  in  the  education  of 
women.  He  said  that  great  characters  usually  have 
some  woman  about  them  and  that  much  of  their  larger 
success  and  the  greatness  of  their  lives  is  due  to  her 
influence.  But  in  his  opinion  femmes  savantes  are 
contemptible.  Mrs.  Adams  thought  however  that  "if 
we  mean  to  have  heroes,  statesmen,  and  philosophers, 
we  should  have  learned  women." 

One  writer  waxes  poetic  in  his  portrayal  of  the  ideal 

woman.     "Mrs.  R had  a  round  and  pretty  face, 

with  gentle  manners;  kept  her  house  well,  her  only 
pride  to  be  neat  and  orderly.  .  .  The  hyacinth  fol- 
lows not  the  sun  more  willingly  than  she  her  husband's 
pleasure."  Dunton  remarks,  in  like  vein,  of  Mrs.  Stew- 
art of  Boston:  "Her  pride  was  to  be  neat  and  cleanly, 
and  her  thrift  not  to  be  prodigal,  which  made  her  sel- 
dom a  non-resident  of  her  household."  It  was  a  hard 
life -full  of  drudgery  and  of  daily  monotony.  In  old 
letters  we  find  great  rejoicing  over  small  luxuries  or 
labor-saving  contrivances  that  found  their  way  to  the 
busy  housekeeper. 

Among  the  Puritans  no  spirit  of  chivalry  prevailed. 
The  Massachusetts  colony  had  a  law  that  women  sus- 
pected of  witchcraft  be  stripped  and  their  bodies  scru- 
tinized by  a  male  "witch-pricker"  to  see  if  there  was 
not  the  devil's  mark  upon  them.  When  in  1656  two 
Quaker  women  came  to  Boston  from  Barbadoes  the 
deputy-governor  apprehended  and  jailed  them.  They 
were  in  prison  five  weeks -till  a  ship  was  ready  to  de- 
port them.  Endicott  would  have  had  them  flogged. 
At  Hartford,  1645,  a  man  was  fined  "for  bequething  his 


Women   in  the  New  England  Family  87 

wyfe."    A  Boston  paper  of  1736  contains  the  following: 

The  beginning  of  last  week  a  pretty  odd  and  uncommon  ad- 
venture happened  in  this  town,  between  two  men  about  a  certain 
woman,  each  one  claiming  her  as  his  wife,  but  so  it  was,  that 
one  of  them  had  actually  disposed  of  his  right  in  her  to  the 
other  for  fifteen  shillings  this  currency,  who  had  only  paid  ten 
of  it  in  part,  and  refus'd  to  pay  the  other  five,  inclining  rather  to 
quit  the  woman  and  lose  his  earnest ;  but  two  gentlemen  happen- 
ing to  be  present,  who  were  friends  to  peace,  charitably  gave 
him  half  a  crown  apiece  to  enable  him  to  fulfil  his  agreement, 
which  the  creditor  readily  took,  and  gave  the  woman  a  modest 
salute,  wishing  her  well  and  his  Brother  Stirling  much  joy  of 
his  bargain. 

The  reader  will  recall  what  was  said  in  a  previous 
chapter  about  the  usage  of  wife-sale  in  England. 

On  woman  rested  the  burden  of  interminable  child- 
bearing.  Large  families  were  the  rule.  Families  of 
ten  and  twelve  children  were  very  common.  Families 
of  from  twenty  to  twenty-five  children  were  not  rare 
enough  to  call  forth  expression  of  wonder.  Josselyn 
(1673)   remarks:     "They  have  store  of  children." 

"Steeped  in  the  Old  Testament"  where  they  read, 
"Lo,  children  are  an  heritage  of  the  Lord :  and  the  fruit 
of  the  womb  is  his  reward.  As  arrows  are  in  the  hand  of 
a  mighty  man;  so  are  children  of  the  youth.  Happy 
is  the  man  that  hath  his  quiver  full  of  them,"  and  living 
in  an  empty  land,  the  springs  of  fecundity  were  strong. 
Large  families  were  eagerly  welcomed.  Boston  had  as 
little  land  to  spare  as  any  New  England  town  but  in  the 
allotments  women  and  children  received  a  full  share. 
In  Brookline  the  early  allotments  were  in  proportion  to 
the  size  of  the  family.  As  bait  for  immigrants,  Gabriel 
Thomas  wrote  of  the  new  world : 

The  Christian  children  born  here  are  generally  well-favored 
and  beautiful.     .     .     I  never  knew  any  to  come  into  the  world 


88         The  American  Family —  Colonial  Period 

with  the  least  blemish  .  .  .  being  in  the  general  .  .  . 
better-natured,  milder,  and  more  tender-hearted  than  those  born 
in  England. 

Equal  praise  was  given  to  the  children  of  Virginia.  It 
was  also  asserted  that  the  average  family  was  larger  in 
America.  The  question  of  pioneer  fecundity  receives 
larger  attention  in  the  next  volume  but  it  is  cited  here 
in  order  to  emphasize  the  burden  laid  upon  woman 
by  primitive  standards. 

Some  specific  illustrations  may  be  of  service.    Speak- 
ing of  a  worthy,  Mather  said: 

He  was  twice  married.  By  his  first  wife,  the  vertuous  daugh- 
ter of  parents  therein  resembled  by  her,  he  had  six  children. 
But  his  next  wife  was  a  young  gentlewoman  whom  he  chose 
from  under  the  guardianship  and  with  the  countenance  of  Ed- 
ward Hopkins  Esq.,  the  excellent  governor  of  Connecticut.  .  . 
By  the  daughter  of  that  Mr.  Launce,  who  is  yet  living  among 
us,  Mr.  Sherman  had  no  less  than  twenty  children  added  unto 
the  number  of  six  which  he  had  before.  .  .  One  woman  [in 
New  England]  has  had  not  less  than  twenty-two  children: 
whereof  she  buried  fourteen  sons  and  six  daughters.  Another 
woman  has  had  no  less  than  twenty-three  children  by  one  hus- 
band; whereof  nineteen  lived  unto  men's  and  women's  estate. 
A  third  was  mother  to  seven-and-twenty  children:  and  she  that 
was  mother  to  Sir  William  Phips,  the  late  governor  of  New 
England,  had  no  less  than  twenty-five  children  besides  him; 
she  had  one  and  twenty  sons  and  five  daughters.  Now  unto  the 
catalog  of  such  "fruitful  vines  by  the  sides  of  the  house"  is  this 
gentlewoman  Mrs.  Sherman  to  be  enumerated.  Behold  thus 
was  our  Sherman,  that  eminent  fearer  of  the  Lord,  blessed  of 
Him. 

Green,  the  Boston  printer,  had  thirty  children.  Wil- 
liam Rawson  had  twenty  by  one  wife.  The  reverend  S. 
Willard,  first  minister  of  Groton,  was  one  of  seventeen 
children  and  himself  had  twenty.  The  reverend  Abijah 
Weld  of  Attleboro,  Massachusetts,  had  fifteen  children. 


Women  in  the  New  England  Family  89 

The  reverend  Moses  Fisher  had  sixteen.  Of  Mrs. 
Sara  Thayer,  who  died  in  1751,  a  local  poet  wrote: 

Also  she  was  a  fruitful  vine, 

The  truth  I  may  relate,  - 
Fourteen  was  of  her  body  born 

And  lived  to  mans  estate. 

From  these  did  spring  a  numerous  race, 

One  hundred  thirty-two; 
Sixty  and  six  each  sex  alike, 

As  I  declare  to  you. 

And  one  thing  more  remarkable, 

Which  I  shall  here  record: 
She'd  fourteen  children  with  her 

At  the  table  of  our  Lord. 

One  worthy  colonist  died  in  1771  leaving  a  progeny  of 
one  hundred  eight  children,  grandchildren,  and  great- 
grandchildren. Another  Massachusetts  man  died  about 
the  same  time,  leaving  one  hundred  fifty-seven  issue 
alive,  including  five  great-grandchildren. 

In  the  seventeenth  century,  in  spite  of  early  marriage 
and  very  high  birth-rate,  increase  was  offset  by  fright- 
ful mortality  of  children;  so  that  the  slaughter  of 
womanhood  in  incessant  child-bearing  was  relatively 
vain.     Significant  is   the   inscription  on  a   Plymouth 

grave-stone:    "Here  lies with  twenty  small 

children. 

Perhaps  there  is  danger  of  overdrawing  the  harsh 
lines  in  colonial  family  life.  There  was  real  affection 
in  many  cases  between  Puritan  husbands  and  wives.  A 
few  love  letters  ofTer  proof.  And  the  New  Englanders 
wrote  many  eulogies  of  their  wives.  Ministers  sounded 
in  tedious  sermons  the  piety  of  colonial  women  and 
poets  sang  their  charms.     A  colonial  writer  (supposed- 


90         The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

ly  President  Clap  of  Yale,  1740- 1766)  pays  this  trib- 
ute to  his  wife : 

[The  Lord  had  apparently  supplied  his  want  of  a  woman  of 
serene  temper,  and  piety.]  And  if  it  happened  at  any  time  that 
we  seemed  not  altogether  to  agree  in  our  opinion  or  inclination 
about  any  lesser  matter  we  used  to  discourse  upon  it,  with  a  per- 
fect calmness  and  pleasancy ;  but  she  did  not  choose  to  debate 
long  upon  any  such  thing  but  was  always  free  and  ready  enough 
to  acquiesce  in  the  opinion  or  inclination  of  her  husband.  And 
such  was  her  kind  and  obliging  carriage  to  me,  that  I  took  great 
pleasure  in  pleasing  her  in  everything  that  I  could.  .  .  And 
if  at  any  time  she  had  any  just  and  necessary  occasion  to  correct 
her  children  or  servants  she  would  do  it  with  a  proper  and 
moderate  smartness  so  as  effectually  to  answer  yet  without  the 
least  passion  or  ruffle  of  mind.  .  .  [If  her  husband  was  re- 
miss in  anything,  she  gently  intimated  it  to  him,  and  (he  says) 
she  was  usually  right.]  She  always  went  through  the  difficul- 
ties of  childbearing  with  a  remarkable  steadfastness,  faith,  pa- 
tience, and  decency.  .  .  Indeed  she  would  sometimes  say  to 
me  that  bearing,  tending  and  burying  children  was  hard  work, 
and  that  she  had  done  a  great  deal  of  it  for  one  of  her  age,  (she 
had  six  children,  whereof  she  buried  four,  and  died  in  the  24 
year  of  her  age.)  yet  would  say  it  was  the  work  she  was  made 
for,  and  what  God  in  his  providence  had  called  her  to,  and 
she  could  freely  do  it  all  for  Him. 

Minister  Clap  in  his  diary  speaks  thus  of  his  wife: 

She  exceeded  all  persons  that  ever  I  saw,  in  a  most  serene,  pleas- 
ant, and  excellent  temper  and  disposition,  which  rendered  her 
very  agreeable  and  lovely  to  me,  and  all  that  were  acquainted 
with  her.  I  lived  with  her  in  the  house  near  eleven  years,  and 
she  was  my  wife  for  almost  nine,  and  I  never  saw  her  in  any 
unpleasant  temper.  Indeed  I  took  great  pleasure  in  pleasing 
her  in  everj'thing  which  I  thought  I  conveniently  could ;  and  if 
she  erred  in  anything  of  that  nature,  it  was  sometimes  in  not  in- 
sisting upon  her  own  inclination  so  much  as  a  wife  may  mod- 
estly do.  [When  he  concluded  to  marry  again  he  prayed:]  If 
it  be  thy  holy  will  and  pleasure,  I  entreat  thou  wouldst  bestow 
upon  me  one  who  is  of  a  healthy  constitution,  chaste,  diligent, 


Women  in  the  New  England  Family  91 

prudent,  grave  and  cheerful  -  one  who  is  descended  from  cred- 
ible parents,  who  has  been  well  educated  in  the  principles  of 
religion,  virtue,  industry,  and  decent  behavior.  And  may  be 
the  desire  of  mine  eye,  as  well  as  the  delight  of  my  heart. 

Back  in  the  seventeenth  century,  the  century  of  Puri- 
tanism, Anne  Bradstreet  wrote 

To  MY  Dear  and  Loving  Husband 

If  ever  two  were  one,  then  surely  we. 
If  ever  man  were  loved  by  wife,  then  thee; 
If  ever  wife  was  happy  in  a  man, 
Compare  with  me  ye  women  if  you  can. 

I  prize  thy  love  more  than  whole  Mines  of  gold. 
Or  all  the  riches  that  the  East  doth  hold. 
My  love  is  such  that  Rivers  cannot  quench,  yc 

Nor  ought  but  love  from  thee,  give  recompence. 

Thy  love  is  such  I  can  no  way  repay. 
The  heavens  reward  thee  manifold  I  pray. 
Then  while  we  live,  in  love  lets  so  persever. 
That  when  we  live  no  more,  we  may  live  ever. 

Thomas  Shepherd,  pastor  at  Cambridge  from  1636 
to  1649,  wrote  on  the  death  of  his  second  wife  that  the 
Lord  mixes  mercy  and  affliction. 

My  dear,  precious,  meek,  and  loving  wife  [has  died  in  child- 
birth leaving  two  dear  children.  The  Lord  threatened  to  pro- 
ceed in  rooting  out  my  family  like  Eli's.]  I  saw  that  if  I  had 
profited  by  my  former  afflictions  of  this  nature,  I  should  not 
have  had  this  scourge.  .  .  This  loss  was  very  great.  She 
was  a  woman  of  incomparable  meekness  of  spirit,  toward  my- 
self especially,  and  very  loving;  of  great  prudence  to  take  care 
for  and  order  my  family  affairs,  being  neither  too  lavish  nor 
sordid  in  anything,  so  that  I  knew  not  what  was  under  her 
hands.  .  .  The  death  of  her  first-born  .  .  ,  was  a 
great  affliction  to  her.  .  .  She  .  .  .  was  the  comfort 
of  my  life  to  me.  .  .  When  her  fever  began  .  .  .  she 
told  me     .     .     .     we  should  love  exceedingly  together  because 


qz         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

we  should  not  live  long  together.  .  .  Thus  God  hath 
much  scourged  me  for  my  sins,  and  sought  to  wean  me  from  this 
world. 

It  was  not  prudent  for  the  Puritan  husband  to  be 
publicly  demonstrative.  Captain  Kemble  of  Boston  sat 
two  hours  in  the  public  stocks  (1656)  for  his  "lewd  and 
unseemly  behavior"  in  kissing  his  wife  "publicquely" 
on  the  Sabbath  upon  his  doorstep  when  he  had  just  re- 
turned from  a  voyage  of  three  years.*^ 

Even  such  a  scandalous  wight  as  Captain  Underbill 
had  some  regard  for  wifely  wisdom.  Against  his  will  he 
had  been  prevailed  upon  by  his  wife  to  wear  his  helmet 
to  battle  against  the  Indians  and  it  had  saved  his  life. 
So  he  writes : 

Let  no  man  despise  advice  and  counsel  of  his  wife,  tho  she  be  a 
woman.  It  were  strange  to  nature  to  think  a  man  should  be 
bound  to  fulfil  the  humor  of  a  woman  what  arms  he  should 
carry;  but  you  see  God  will  have  it  so  that  a  woman  should 
overcome  a  man.  What  with  Delilah's  flattery  and  with  her 
mournful  tears,  they  must  and  will  have  their  desire,  when  the 
hand  of  God  goes  along  in  the  matter.  .  .  Therefore  let  the 
clamor  be  quenched  I  daily  hear  in  my  ears,  that  New  England 
men  usurp  over  their  wives,  and  keep  them  in  servile  subjec- 
tion. The  country  is  wronged  in  this  matter  as  in  many  things 
else.  Let  this  precedent  satisfy  the  doubtful  for  that  comes 
from  the  example  of  a  rude  soldier.  If  they  be  so  courteous  to 
their  wives,  as  to  take  their  advice  in  warlike  matters,  how 
much  more  kind  is  the  tender  affectionate  husband  to  honor  his 
wife  as  the  w^eaker  vessel?  Yet  mistake  not.  I  say  not  that 
they  are  bound  to  call  their  wives  in  council,  tho  they  are  bound 
to  take  their  private  advice  (so  far  as  they  see  it  make  for  their 
advantage  and  their  good). 

On  his  trips  with  circuit  court  John  Adams  used  to 
keep  his  wife  regularly  informed  of  his  experiences. 
She  does  not  appear  to  have  often  replied  to  these  let- 
ters.    To  do  so  would  have  been  difKcult,  in  that  day  of 

■*»  Earle.     Colonial  Dames  and  Goodivives,  136. 


Women  in  the  New  England  Family  93 

slow  post,  with  him  on  the  move.  She  was  in  closest 
sympathy  with  the  development  of  his  mind  toward  the 
Revolution.  She  bids  adieu  to  domestic  felicity,  per- 
haps until  they  shall  meet  in  another  world.  By  her 
prudence  during  her  husband's  period  of  preoccupation 
in  public  afifairs,  she  saved  him  the  embarrassment  of 
poverty  in  later  years.  She  was  a  moderating  influence 
upon  his  fieriness. 

It  is  evident  that  practice  in  the  best  families  in  re- 
spect to  woman's  place  outstript  legal  theory  as  implied 
in  such  a  law  as  that  of  Massachusetts  to  the  effect  that 
"any  conveyance  or  alienation  of  land  or  other  estate 
whatsoever,  made  by  any  woman  that  is  married,  any 
child  under  age,  ideott  or  distracted  person,  shall  be 
good  if  it  be  passed  and  ratified  by  the  consent  of  a  gen- 
erall  court."  The  pater  familias  was  not  absolute  in  his 
authority,  even  in  the  eyes  of  the  law.  Massachusetts 
provided  that  ''no  man  shall  strike  his  wife,  nor  any 
woman  her  husband,  on  penalty  of  such  fine,  not  ex- 
ceeding £10  for  one  offence,  or  such  corporall  punish- 
ment as  the  county  court  shall  determine."  The  Ply- 
mouth law  was  the  same.  The  Body  of  Liberties  ( 1641 ) 
ordained  that  "everie  marryed  woeman  shall  be  free 
from  bodily  correction  or  stripes  by  her  husband,  unless 
it  be  in  his  own  defence  upon  her  assault.  If  there  be 
any  just  cause  of  correction  complaint  shall  be  made  to 
authoritie  assembled  in  some  court,  from  which  only 
she  shall  receive  it." 

Wives  enjoyed  large  protection  from  early  laws.  A 
man  was  not  permitted  to  keep  his  wife  on  remote  and 
dangerous  plantations  but  must  "bring  her  in,  else  the 
town  will  pull  his  house  down."  A  man  might  not 
leave  his  wife  for  any  length  of  time  nor  "marrie  too 
wifes  which  were  both  alive  for  anything  that  can  ap- 


94         The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

pear  otherwise  at  one  time."     Nor  must  he  even  use 
''hard  words"  to  her.^° 

The  question  of  wifely  subjection  was  not  in  all  cases 
a  simple  one.  In  Rhode  Island  Mr.  Verin's  wife  used 
to  go  out  the  back  way  to  the  adjoining  house  of  Roger 
Williams  to  listen  to  his  religious  talks.  Verin  forbade 
her  and  the  matter  came  up  to  the  council.  It  was  ob- 
jected that  a  motion  to  censure  Verin  would  mean  that 
"men's  wives  and  children  and  servants  could  claim 
liberty  to  go  to  all  religious  meetings,  tho  never  so 
often."  One  Arnold  asserted  that  'Svhen  he  consented 
to  that  order"  for  religious  liberty,  "he  never  intended 
it  should  extend  to  the  breach  of  any  ordinance  of  God, 
such  as  the  subjection  of  wives  to  their  husbands,"  etc. 
One  Green  replied  "that  if  they  should  restrain  their 
wives  etc,  all  the. women  of  the  country  would  cry  out 
of  them,  etc."  Arnold  alleged  that  the  desire  to  be 
gadding  about  was  not  prompted  altogether  by  woman's 
conscience.  Governor  Winthrop  notes  that  some  mem- 
bers of  the  church  at  Providence  suggested  that  if 
Goodman  Verin  would  not  allow  his  wife  entire  liberty 
to  attend  meeting  on  Sunday  and  weekly  lectures  as 
often  as  she  desired  "the  church  would  dispose  her  to 
some  other  man  who  would  use  her  better."  The  final 
action  condemned  Verin  (1638).  "It  was  agreed  that 
Joshua  Verin,  upon  the  breach  of  a  covenant  for  re- 
straining of  the  libertie  of  conscience,  shall  be  withheld 
from  the  libertie  of  voting  till  he  shall  declare  the  con- 
trarie."  He  soon  left  Providence.  Williams  wrote  of 
Verin: 

He  hath  refused  to  hear  the  word  with  us  (which  we  molested 
him,  not  for  this  i2month)  so  because  he  could  not  draw  his 
wife,  a  gracious  modest  woman,  to  the  same  ungodliness  with 
50  Earle.     Customs  and  Fashions  in  Old  Neiu  England,  68. 


Women  in  the  New  England  Family  95 

him,  he  hath  trodden  her  underfoot  tj'rannically  and  brutishly; 
which  she  and  we  long  bearing,  tho  with  his  furious  blows  she 
went  in  danger  of  her  life,  at  the  last  the  major  vote  of  us  dis- 
card him  from  our  civil  freedom,  or  disfranchise. 

Women's  property  interests  received  a  measure  of 
legal  protection.  It  was  enacted  in  Plymouth  in  1636 
(perhaps  under  the  influence  of  Dutch  law)  that  when 
lands  were  seized  to  satisfy  the  creditors  of  a  deceased 
man  the  part  reserved  for  the  support  of  wife  and  chil- 
dren could  not  be  touched.  In  1646  the  consent  of  the 
wife  was  made  necessary  to  the  sale  of  houses  or  lands. 
This  measure  was  reenacted  in  1658.  Massachusetts 
(1647)  allowed  the  widow  one-third  of  her  husband's 
estate  as  dowry.  Previously  the  Body  of  Liberties  had 
provided  that  "if  any  man  at  his  death  shall  not  leave 
his  wife  a  competent  portion  of  his  estate,  upon  just 
complaint  made  to  the  general  court  she  shall  be  re- 
lieved." 

In  Connecticut  "when  any  man  dieth  intestate  leav- 
ing an  estate  his  widdow"  shall  have  besides  the  third 
part  of  his  real  estate  during  her  life  "a  part  also  of  his 
personall  estate  equall  to  his  eldest  child,  provided  it 
exceed  not  a  third  part  of  the  sd  personall  estate,  which 
said  part  of  her  husband's  personall  estate  shall  be  her 
own  forever"  (1696).  The  records  of  Connecticut 
show  that  "in  the  first  settlement  of  the  colony  land  was 
of  little  value  in  comparison  with  what  it  now  [1723] 
is,  by  which  means  it  became  a  general  custom,  that  the 
real  estate  of  any  person"  descending  to  his  daughters 
"became  .  .  .  the  proper  and  sole  estate  of  their 
husbands,  and  might  be  by  him  alienated  or  disposed  of 
without  the  knowledge  or  consent  of  such  wives;  and  a 
great  number  of  estates  having  been  thus  settled  and  so 
remain  at  this  day.     .     ."    Hereafter  such  real  estate  is 


96         The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

not  to  be  alienable  without  the  wife's  consent.  In 
Rhode  Island  the  dower  right  was  used  as  a  check  on 
wives.  It  was  ordained  that  a  married  woman  "that 
elopeth  with  her  adventurer"  should  lose  her  dower  of 
lands. 

The  reasonableness  of  provision  for  the  widow  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  case  of  a  woman  of  Plymouth  colony 
thus:  "Joane  Tilson  her  husband  dying  without  will, 
and  forasmuch  as  she  hath  bine  a  true  laborer  with 
him  .  .  .  that  shee  shall  have  £30  sterling  out  of 
the  said  estate." 

In  Rhode  Island,  1671,  Mr.  R.  Waterman  died  in- 
testate. The  town  council  allotted  the  widow  the  en- 
joyment of  house  and  lot,  other  lands  and  meadows, 
w^ith  the  cattle,  for  her  "maintenance  and  the  bringing 
up  of  the  orphans  five  small  children."  In  December, 
1699,  a  curious  agreement  was  made  between  George 
Potter  and  Rachel,  his  wife.    She  had  with  his 

Consent  and  in  hope  of  more  peaceable  Hveing,  withdrawn  her- 
self and  removed  to  Boston  for  some  time:  and  now  finding  it 
uncomfortable  so  to  live  and  I  being  desirous  to  come  together 
againe,  doe  here  for  her  further  incouragement  and  to  prevent 
after  strifes  and  alienations  propose  these  Artikles.  I.  She  has 
given  some  things  to  her  children.  I  shall  never  abraid  her 
nor  seek  a  return  to  them.  2ly.  Our  house  and  land,  if  I  dye 
before  my  wife,  she  shall  have  it  during  her  widowhood  and 
bearing  my  name.  In  case  of  marriage  she  shall  enjoy  1/3, 
other  2/3  to  my  nearest  relations-  at  her  decease  her  1/3  to  re- 
turn. 3ly.  I  will  not  sell  or  mortgage  any  house  or  lands. 
4ly.  I  promise  to  dwell  in  all  loving  and  quiet  behavior.  All 
moveables  she  shall  possess  at  my  desease.  5ly.  I  Rachel  Potter 
if  it  appear  I  have  desposed  of  more  than  one  bed  since  our  de- 
parture, said  bed  shall  be  returned. 

Such  an  agreement  suggests  an  approach  to  equality, 
freedom,  and  mutuality  between  husband  and  wife. 
A  few  instances  of  bequests  to  wives  may  reflect  in  a 


Women  in  the  New  England  Family  97 

measure  the  regard  of  husband  for  wife.  Thomas  Man 
gives  his  wife  the  use  of  all  the  household  goods  so  long 
as  she  remains  a  widow.  If  she  remarried,  three- 
fourths  of  the  goods  should  go  to  the  daughters,  one- 
fourth  to  the  mother.  In  1787  John  Potter  made  con- 
siderate provision  for  his  wife.  A  good  riding  beast, 
saddle  and  bridle  with  one  good  cow  was  to  go  to  either 
son  with  whom  she  might  choose  to  live.  Firewood 
was  to  be  brought  to  her  room  and  she  was  to  have 
everything  to  make  her  happy.  If  she  should  marry, 
these  bequests  were  to  go  to  the  daughters.  This  con- 
ditioning of  bequests  on  abstinence  from  remarriage 
illustrates  the  concept  of  the  wife  as  an  annex  to  the 
husband  rather  than  as  an  individual  personality. 

Intestate  settlements  are  an  index  of  public  opinion. 
This  fact  makes  significant  such  a  case  as  that  when 
William  Turpin  died  intestate  in  171 1,  leaving  a  widow 
and  three  children.  The  son  William  agrees  with  his 
"mother-in-law"  [step-mother?]  to  allow  her  the  room 
now  occupied  by  her  in  his  father's  house  for  life  with 
benefit  of  fire,  etc.  If  she  needed  a  physician  the  ex- 
pense was  to  be  borne  out  of  her  own  estate. 

Tho  the  home  was  not  sacred  from  the  invasion  of  the 
state  in  case  of  parental  unfitness,  nevertheless,  in  the 
normal  home  domestic  ties  were  manifold  and  strong 
in  these  simple  days  before  economic  evolution  had 
banished  or  even  considerably  weakened  home  indus- 
tries. The  normal  home  was  an  almost  self-sufficient 
unit.  The  wife  attended  to  all  manner  of  household 
manufactures  after  the  fashion  set  by  the  virtuous 
woman  in  the  last  chapter  of  Proverbs. 

But  the  impression  that  the  colonial  dame  performed 
Herculean  labors  is  a  myth.  These  tours  de  force  were 
rarely  performed  by  a  one-woman   household.     The 


98         The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

wife  bore  and  reared  children  and  superintended  the 
house;  but  she  did  not  do  the  heavy  work  if  there  was 
need  of  her  services  in  other  lines.  Some  families  had 
numerous  trained  and  capable  servants.  In  the  country 
daughters  not  needed  at  home  worked  in  neighbors' 
households  until  married.  Many  families  in  town  and 
country  took  bound  children  to  raise  for  the  returns 
from  their  labor.  They  were  generally  children  of 
neighbors  or  friends.  They  were  not  always  well  treat- 
ed. The  commonest  helpers  were  the  unmarried  sis- 
ters of  husband  or  wife.  Moreover,  most  of  the  large 
families  of  earlier  times  were  the  offspring  of  at  least 
two  mothers,"  and  the  later  wives  had  fewer  children. 
The  first  wife  would  get  quickly  six  or  seven  children 
and  die  exhausted  by  maternity  and  labor.  The  next 
wife,  young  and  sturdy,  would  take  hold  and  bring  up 
the  family,  some  of  whom  were  likely  old  enough  to  be 
of  help.  She  would  have  three  or  four  children,  per- 
haps at  longer  intervals.  If  a  third  wife  supervened 
she  had  a  strong  corps  of  assistants.  The  number  of 
women  that  actually  performed  unaided  the  fabled 
tasks  while  bearing  and  rearing  many  children  was 
probably  not  much  greater  than  now.  Many  children 
died  before  their  rearing  was  much  of  a  tax.  The  typ- 
ical family  included  several  adult  unmarried  women, 
unpaid  servants  of  their  kindred.  Often  they  filled  a 
place  of  honor  and  esteem  but  in  many  cases  they  la- 
bored bitterly  in  dishonor- "old  maids"  in  the  sense 
that  made  the  term  one  of  intense  reproach.  These  toil- 
ing spinsters  are  forgotten  and  their  toils  have  been  put 
down  to  the  account  of  their  married  sisters.  The  exis- 
tence of  such  a  supply  of  high-class  cheap  labor  de- 

si  Compare   Hall   and   Smith,  Marriage  and  Fecundity   of  Colonial  Men 
and  fVomen,  in  Pedagogical  Seminary,  vol.  x,  275-314. 


Women  in  the  New  England  Family  99 

pressed  the  wages  of  domestic  servants,  and  formed  a 
tradition  that  has  remained  unto  this  day  as  a  weight 
upon  household  service." 

The  presence  of  a  number  of  unmarried  females  in 
the  household  gave  grounds  for  the  enforcement  of  the 
Mosaic  prohibition  of  marriage  within  forbidden  de- 
grees. We  can  imagine  that  the  home  would  not  have 
been  very  harmonious  if  the  wife  had  felt  that  her  sis- 
ters living  in  the  same  house  were  potential  rivals  and 
successors.  In  colonial  days  the  family  connections 
were  closer  than  now  and  it  was  not  unreasonable  that 
persons  related  even  by  marriage  should  have  been  pro- 
hibited from  marrying  each  other.  Such  restrictions 
would  make  less  constrained  and  precarious  the  inter- 
course of  large  groups  of  kinsfolk.  Whether  or  not  the 
colonists  were  conscious  of  this  reason  for  the  "forbid- 
den degrees"  it  is  tolerably  sure  that  these  restrictions 
would  not  have  lingered  had  they  been  altogether  an- 
achronistic. 

In  fact  the  barriers  could  scarcely  be  maintained. 
In  1 69 1  Hannah  Owen  and  Josiah  Owen  were  adjudged 
to  be  "within  the  line  of  kindred  or  affinity  forbidden" 
and  ordered  to  cohabit  no  more.  Hannah  "owned  that 
she  was  said  Josiah's  own  brother's  relict."  To  Josiah, 
who  had  brought  about  the  marriage,  nothing  was  done. 
The  woman  was  ordered  to  "make  a  public  acknowl- 
edgement of  her  sin  and  evil  before  the  congregation  at 
Braintree  on  their  Lecture  Day,  or  on  the  Lord's  Day." 
Samuel  Newton  of  Marlborough  married  his  uncle's 
widow  and  had  two  children  by  her.  The  marriage 
was  declared  void  "by  the  word  of  God  as  also  by  the 
law  of  England;"  and  they  were  forbidden  to  continue 

''2  MacGill.  "Myth  of  the  Colonial  Housewife,"  in  the  Independent,  vol. 
Ixix,    1318-1322. 


lOO       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

in  their  "incest."  In  Massachusetts,  1695,  ^  bill  against 
incest  was  passed  by  the  slight  margin  of  twenty-seven 
to  twenty-four. 

The  ministers  gave  in  their  arguments  yesterday  in  writing; 
else  it  had  hardly  gone,  because  several  have  married  their 
wives'  sisters,  and  the  deputies  thought  it  hard  to  part  them. 
'Twas  concluded  on  the  other  hand  that  not  to  part  them  were 
to  make  the  law  abortive,  by  begetting  in  people  a  conceipt  that 
such  marriages  were  not  against  the  law  of  God. 

This  law  forbade  marriage  with  wife's  sister  or  niece. 
A  few  years  later  Samuel  Sewall  wrote  to  his  cousin 
who  had  asked  advice  about  a  proposed  marriage  to  the 
widow  of  his  cousin-german.  Samuel  advised  against 
the  marriage  on  the  ground  of  doubtful  degrees  and 
cited  the  Assembly's  annotations  on  Leviticus^  xviii.  The 
gist  of  this  is  that  as  far  as  the  ties  of  kindred  love  reach, 
so  far  the  prohibition  of  marriage  extends.  Marriage 
should  be  with  more  remote  persons  "that  so  charity 
might  be  more  diffusive;  and  not  so  contracted  to  one's 
kindred  as  it  was  among  the  Jews."  Sewall  says  the 
Indians  seldom  marry  so  near  as  cousins-german  and 
surely  we  ought  not  to  have  to  go  to  school  to  them. 
Besides  the  saints  disapprove.  How  much  the  Con- 
necticut saints  disapproved  of  what  they  considered  in- 
cest is  apparent  from  the  law  that  he  who  married  a 
sister-in-law  was  punished  (and  the  wife  too)  with 
forty  lashes  on  the  bare  back  and  forced  to  wear  a  letter 
"I"  sewed  on  the  outside  of  arm  or  on  the  back. 

But  not  all  women  were  content  to  constitute  domestic 
problems.  The  spirit  of  self-reliance  was,  in  case  of 
necessity,  as  quick  and  steady  in  women  of  at  least  the 
later  colonial  period  as  now.  But  even  in  the  early 
days,  as  suggested  in  our  reference  to  the  exploits  of 
"ancient  maids,"  women  could  do  things.     Governor 


Women  in  the  New  England  Family         loi 

John  Winthrop  Junior's  afifairs  in  New  Haven  seem  to 
have  been  placed  in  the  care  of  Mrs.  Davenport,  wife 
of  the  Reverend  John.  There  even  were  women  voters 
in  the  New  England  colonies.^^  Advertisements  from 
1720  to  1800  show  that  women  were  teachers,  embroid- 
erers, jelly-makers,  cooks,  wax-workers,  japanners, 
mantua  makers,  dealers  in  crockery,  musical  instru- 
ments, hardware,  farm  products,  groceries,  drugs,  wines 
and  spirits;  and  Hawthorne  noted  one  colonial  woman 
that  ran  a  blacksmith  shop.  Peter  Faneuil's  account- 
books  show  dealings  with  many  Boston  tradeswomen, 
some  of  whom  bought  thousands  of  pounds'  worth  of 
imported  goods  in  a  year.  On  the  list  of  Salem  con- 
spirators against  taxation  may  be  found  the  names  of 
five  women  merchants.  Women  also  published  news- 
papers.^" Most  of  these  took  charge  on  the  death  of  a 
husband,  brother,  or  son  who  had  been  editor.  Some- 
times they  substituted  for  their  male  relatives  in  case  of 
sickness  or  press  of  affairs.  Women  in  New  England 
coast  towns  were  urged  to  participate  actively  in  for- 
eign commerce  by  sending  a  "venture"  when  a  vessel 
departed  with  a  cargo.  Mrs.  Grant,  a  business  woman 
of  Newport,  who  assumed  charge  of  the  business  on  her 
husband's  death,  found  out  that  her  lawyer  was  a  rascal ; 
so  she  rushed  into  court,  pleaded  a  case  for  herself,  and 
won  the  verdict.  For  nearly  a  century  and  a  half  after 
the  landing  of  the  Pilgrims  there  were  practically  no 
women  wage-earners,  however,  outside  of  domestic  ser- 
vice. 

Colonial  women  were  not  altogether  out  of  the  "great 
world,"  the  world  of  fashion.  There  were  no  fashion 
papers  in  the  old  days,  but  dolls  dressed  in  the  latest 

•'•^  Bjorkman    and    Porritt.     fVoman    Suffrage-  History,    Arguments,    Re- 
sults, 5 ;  Stanton,  et  al.     History  of  Woman  Suffrage,  vol.  i,  footnote  208. 
•''*  For  details  see  Stanton  et  al.,  History  of  IVoman  Suffrage,  vol.  i,  43-44. 


I02       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

styles  were  exhibited.  The  following  is  a  New  Eng- 
land advertisement  of  the  eighteenth  century: 

To  be  seen  at  Mrs.  Hannah  Teats',  a  baby  drest  after  the  new- 
est fashions.  .  .  Lately  arrived  from  London.  Any  ladies 
that  desire  to  see  it  may  either  come  or  send.  .  .  If  they 
come  .  .  .  two  shillings,  and  if  she  waits  on  'em  it  is  seven 
shillings. 

Back  in  the  early  days  Nathaniel  Ward,  minister  at 
Ipswich  (1634-1636),  expressed  disgust  with  extrava- 
gant fashions. 

Writers  tell  us  in  glowing  terms  of  woman's  high 
position  in  colonial  New  England.  Elliot  says  in  The 
New  England  History:  "In  New  England,  women 
were  never  made  the  slaves,  or  inferiors  of  men;  they 
were  co-equal  in  social  life,  and  held  a  position  superior 
to  that  held  by  them  in  England."    Dexter  tells  us  that 

The  Plymouth  colony  w^as  the  first  in  this  country  if  not  in  the 
whole  world,  to  recognize  and  honor  woman.  From  the  very 
outset,  she  had  her  rightful  place  at  her  husband's  side  as  her 
children's  head.  And  the  Plymouth  wives  and  mothers  .  .  . 
were  worthy  of  the  men  by  whose  side  they  stood.  They  rep- 
resented in  character  and  experience  the  best  type  of  woman- 
hood of  that  age.  The  same  thing  was  true  of  the  colony  of 
Massachusetts  Bay. 

Warfield  writes: 

There  was  material  for  Hawthorne's  masterpiece  even  in  Mass- 
achusetts Bay  .  .  .  but  the  current  ran  deep  and  strong 
through  simple  lives,  finding  their  inspiration  and  happiness  in 
the  family,  its  home  life,  its  bonds  of  affection,  its  widening 
circuit  as  younger  generations  cut  their  way  westward  through 
the  forest.  The  familiar  picture  of  the  Puritan  father  [which 
Warfield  seems  to  think  overdrawn]  is  that  of  a  man  burdened 
with  the  responsibilities  of  life  for  himself  and  for  his  children. 
The  companion  piece  is  a  mother  who  is  a  shield  and  a  com- 
forter, sharing  the  faith  of  her  husband  but  manifesting  its 
gentler  aspects;  not  less  anxious  for  the  moral  conduct  of  her 


Women  in  the  New  England  Family         103 

offspring,  but  more  confident  of  the  value  of  a  ministry  of 
love.  .  .  Throughout  the  colonies  for  the  greater  part  of 
their  history,  the  wife  and  mother  dominated  the  home,  ruling 
it  with  a  light  hand  and  a  loving  sway.  The  home  life  was 
very  simple.  The  home  training  was  reduced  to  a  narrow  field 
of  purpose.  The  boys  were  to  be  fitted  to  go  forth  and  earn  a 
living,  setting  up  homes  for  themselves  as  soon  as  possible.  The 
girls  were  trained  to  become  housewives. 

Of  course  such  generalizations  partake  of  idealiza- 
tion. These  pictures  of  the  matriarchate  of  love  are  too 
idyllic.  Warfield's  generalization  would  be  rather 
poetic  even  for  our  day. 


VI.    THE  STATUS  OF  CHILDREN  IN  THE 
NEW  ENGLAND  COLONIAL  FAMILY 

If  one  were  to  infer  the  colonial  attitude  toward  chil- 
dren from  the  prevalent  fecundity  he  might  guess  that 
children  were  held  in  great  esteem.  The  inference 
would  be  only  partly  correct.  Dependent  on  men  for 
the  opportunity  to  live,  women  were  the  instruments  of 
male  gratification  and  did  not  realize  their  degrada- 
tion. They  were  the  vicarious  sacrifice  to  the  peopling 
of  a  continent.  The  children  were  providential  acci- 
dents, prized,  indeed,  in  a  rather  instinctive  fashion  by 
a  people  soaked  in  Hebraism,  and  living  close  to  the 
line  of  annihilation,  or,  if  more  prosperous,  requiring 
heirs  that  their  hoard  of  goods  might  pass  on  with  dis- 
tinction and  men  to  occupy  the  continent  against  all 
comers. 

Colonial  childhood  is  largely  hidden  in  obscurity. 
Letters  and  diaries  contain  little  mention  of  the  chil- 
dren save  the  record  of  births  and  deaths  and  maladies 
and  the  like.  Children  were  "to  be_^en  not  heard, ^V 
and  not  seen  too  much  either.  There  was  no  purpose  to 
make  the  child  appear  valuable  or  noteworthy  to  him- 
self or  others.  Scientific  child  study  was  a  thing  of  the 
future. 

Yet  the  family  of  moderate  means  was  in  many  ways 
better  off  in  America  than  in  England  and  children 
profited  by  the  improvement.  It  was  difficult  at  first  to 
rear  children  in  the  new  country.  In  the  bareness  and 
cold  of  Massachusetts,  mortality  of  infants  was  fright- 


io6       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

ful.  One  man  had  sixteen  children.  The  first  was 
only  a  year  and  a  half  old  when  the  second  was  born. 
When  the  baby  was  four  days  old  the  older  child  died. 
This  calamity  was  five  times  repeated.  Married  nine 
years  the  mother  had  one  child  living  and  five  dead. 
With  freezing  homes,  bad  diet,  and  Spartan  treatment 
it  does  not  seem  strange  that  a  large  proportion  of  sev- 
enteenth century  children  died  in  infancy.  This  was 
the  case  even  in  the  most  favored  families;  thus  of  Cot- 
ton Mather's  fifteen  children  only  two  survived  him 
and  of  Judge  Sewall's  fourteen  only  three  outlived  their 
father. 

This  curtailment  in  face  of  the  vacancy  of  a  limitless 
continent  enhanced  the  value  of  children.  This  in- 
creased esteem  is  obvious  in  colonial  laws  and  children 
began  to  acquire  that  growing  sense  of  their  own  im- 
portance that  has  at  length  illumined  "the  century  of 
the  child." 

The  colonists  still  believed  in  astrology;  hence  the 
very  minute  of  the  child's  birth  was  recorded.  Parents 
searched  for  names  of  deep  import,  and  this  with  a  view 
to  their  influence  on  the  child's  life.  Quack  medicines 
and  vile  doses  were  in  evidence  even  tho  it  seems  that 
Locke's  Thoughts  on  Education  published  in  England 
in  1690  was  popular  in  the  new  world.  It  occurs  on 
many  old  library  lists  in  New  England  and  among  the 
few  volumes  on  the  single  book  shelf.  His  precepts 
were  diffused  on  the  pages  of  almanacs,  the  "best  sell- 
ers" (save  the  Bible)  of  all  eighteenth  century  books. 
From  him  came  such  practical  suggestions  as  "always 
wetting  children's  feet  in  cold  water  to  toughen  them; 
and  also  have  children  wear  thin-soled  shoes  that  the 
wet  may  come  freely  in."  It  was  urged  that  boys 
should  go  hatless  and  nightcapless  as  soon  as  they  had 


Children  in  the  New  England  Family        107 

hair.  Josiah  Quincy  at  three  years  was  taken  from  his 
warm  bed,  winter  and  summer,  carried  to  the  cellar 
kitchen,  and  dipped  three  times  in  water  just  from  the 
pump.  He  said  that  in  his  boyhood  he  sat  more  than 
half  the  time  with  wet  feet  without  ill  effects.  Many 
Revolutionary  heroes  grew  up  under  Locke's  strenuous 
rules  of  dietary  and  sleeping.  If  his  embargo  on 
"physic"  was  too  little  followed,  it  was  a  cause  for  re- 
gret. But  less  beer  was  consumed  in  America  than  in 
the  Old  World,  and  more  milk -a  change  beneficial  to 
colonial  children. 

Nothing  was  allowed  to  interfere  with  due  observance 
of  religious  form.  The  infant  must  be  taken  to  the  fire- 
less  church  for  baptism  on  the  first  Sabbath  after  birth 
no  matter  if  ice  had  to  be  broken  in  the  font.  He  went 
in  the  arms  of  the  midwife- a  great  colonial  dignitary. 
One  parson  practiced  immersion  till  his  own  children 
nearly  succumbed  under  the  ordeal.  It  is  said  that  the 
meeting-house  contained  sometimes  a  little  wooden 
cage  or  frame  to  hold  babies  too  young  or  feeble  or 
sleepy  to  sit  up.  One  would  suppose  that  the  inter- 
minable sermons  in  icy  churches  must  have  been  re- 
sponsible for  many  deaths. 

The  century  of  colony-planting,  the  seventeenth,  was, 
in  Europe,  an  age  of  precocity.  The  same  atavism 
characterized  the  American  colonies.  A  stern  theology 
contributed  to  this  distortion  of  childhood.  Michael 
Wigglesworth,  "the  most  popular  versifier  of  early 
New  England  Puritanism,"  in  his  Day  of  Doom,  which 
countless  children  had  to  learn,  represents  children  de- 
ceased in  infancy  as  pleading  with  the  judge  that  if 
Adam,  the  author  of  original  sin,  is  saved,  they  should 
also  be.  Christ  tells  them  that  if  Adam  had  stood  true 
they  would  have  been  glad  to  enjoy  the  reward  ;  so  they 


io8       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

ought  to  be  satisfied  to  take  the  penalty.  Edwards,  in  a 
sermon,  describes  parents  in  heaven  "with  holy  joy 
upon  their  countenances"  at  the  torment  of  their  little 
ones.  This  view  of  the  depravity  of  child  nature  made 
it  necessary  to  seek  infantile  conversion.  Children 
from  their  earliest  years  were  confronted  with  the  ter- 
rors of  hell  from  which  they  could  escape  only  by  fol- 
lowing what  they  were  taught  and  abstaining  from 
everything  they  would  naturally  want  to  do.  Cotton 
Mather  writes: 

I  took  my  little  daughter  Katy  [aged  four]  into  my  study  and 
there  told  my  child  that  I  am  to  dy  shortly  and  she  must,  when 
I  am  dead,  remember  everything  I  now  said  unto  her.  I  sett 
before  her  the  sinful!  condition  of  her  nature  and  charged  her 
to  pray  in  secret  places  every  day.  That  God  for  the  sake  of 
Jesus  Christ  would  give  her  a  new  heart.  .  .  I  gave  her  to 
understand  that  when  I  am  taken  from  her  she  must  look  to 
meet  with  more  humbling  afflictions  than  she  does  now  she  has 
a  tender  father  to  provide  for  her. 

This  was  thirty  years  before  he  died. 

Judge  Sewall  records  the  distress  of  his  daughter 
Betty  who  burst  out  in  a  sudden  cry,  fearing  she  would 
go  to  hell. 

She  was  first  wounded  by  my  reading  a  sermon  of  Mr.  Nor- 
ton's; text  "Ye  shall  seek  me  and  shall  not  find  me."  And 
those  words  in  the  sermon  "Ye  shall  seek  me  and  die  in  your 
sins"  ran  in  her  mind  and  terrified  her  greatly.  And  staying 
at  home  she  read  out  of  Mr.  Cotton  Mather,  "Why  had  Satan 
filled  thy  heart,"  which  increased  her  fear.  Her  mother  asked  her 
whether  she  prayed.  She  answered  "yes"  but  feared  her  prayers 
were  not  heard  because  her  sins  were  not  pardoned.  .  . 
[Two  weeks  later  he  wrrites:]  Betty  comes  in  as  soon  as  I  was 
up  and  tells  me  the  disquiet  she  had  when  wak'd.  Told  me 
she  was  afraid  she  should  go  to  hell ;  was  like  Spira  not  elected. 
Ask'd  her  what  I  should  pray  for,  she  said  that  God  .would 
pardon  her  sin  and  give  her  a  new  heart.     I  answered  her  fears 


Children  in  the  New  England  Family        109 

as  well  as  I  could,  and  prayed  with  many  fears  on  either  part. 
Hope  God  heard  us. 

Jonathan  Edwards  tells  of  Phebe  Bartlet  who  at  four 
was  greatly  affected  by  the  talk  of  her  brother  converted 
a  little  before  at  about  eleven.  Her  parents  were  not 
used  to  directing  their  serious  counsels  to  their  chil- 
dren, especially  not  to  her  as  they  thought  her  too 
young.  But  they  watched  her  after  her  brother's  talk 
listen  earnestly  to  the  advice  they  gave  to  the  other  chil- 
dren. She  retired  to  pray  several  times  daily.  She 
one  day  told  her  mother  her  fear  she  should  go  to  hell. 
Her  mother  quieted  her,  told  her  she  must  be  a  good 
girl  and  pray  every  day  and  that  she  hoped  God  would 
give  her  salvation.  Later  the  child  experienced  salva- 
tion. When  questioned  she  said  she  loved  God  better 
than  father  or  mother  or  sister  or  anything.  Then  she 
cried  for  fear  her  sister  would  go  to  hell.  At  church 
she  did  not  spend  her  time  in  child  fashion.  She  went 
once  with  bigger  children  to  a  neighbor's  lot  to  get 
plums.  Her  mother  reproved  her  gently  for  taking 
them  without  leave.  She  had  not  known  it  was  wrong. 
Distressed  over  her  sin  she  retained  her  aversion  to  the 
fruit  for  a  considerable  time  tho  the  other  children  were 
not  much  affected. 

Anne  Dudley  at  six  or  seven  tells  her  grief  at  her 
"neglect  of  Private  Duteys"  in  which  she  is  too  often 
lax.  At  sixteen  recognizing  herself  as  "carnall  and 
sitting  loose  from  God"  she  accepts  the  smallpox  as  a 
"proper  rebuke  to  her  pride  and  vanity."  Nathaniel 
Mather  tells  us  in  his  diary: 

When  very  young  I  went  astray  from  God  and  my  mind  was 
altogether  taken  with  vanities  and  follies,  such  as  the  remem- 
brance of  them  doth  greatly  abase  my  soul  within  me.  Of  the 
manifold  sins  which  then  I  was  guilty  of,  none  so  sticks  upon 


iio       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

me,  as  that,  being  very  young,  I  was  whittling  on  the  Sabbath 
Day,  and  for  fear  of  being  seen  I  did  it  behind  the  door.  A 
great  reproach  of  God !  a  specimen  of  that  Atheism  I  brought 
into  the  world  with  me. 

Children  on  the  streets  mouthed  the  current  phrases 
and  during  the  Hutchinson  trial  jeered  at  one  another 
as  believers  in  the  "Covenant  of  Works"  or  in  the  "Cov- 
enant of  Grace." 

In  many  cases  parental  zeal  for  education  over- 
stimulated  and  forced  baby  minds.  One  of  the  most 
precocious  w^as  a  girl  born  in  Boston  in  1708.  In  her 
second  year  she  knew  her  letters  and  "could  relate  many 
stories  out  of  the  Scriptures  to  the  satisfaction  and 
pleasure  of  the  most  judicious."  At  three  she  knew 
most  of  the  catechism,  many  psalms,  many  lines  of 
poetry,  and  read  distinctly;  at  four  she  asked  many 
astonishing  questions  about  theology.  (Her  father  was 
president  of  Harvard.)  A  letter  of  Jonathan  Edwards 
written  at  twelve  sounds  like  the  work  of  a  grown  man. 
Boys  entered  Boston  Latin  School  as  young  as  six  and  a 
half.  They  often  began  Latin  much  younger.  Infants 
of  three  were  sometimes  taught  to  read  Latin  words  as 
soon  as  English.  One  minister  used  to  throw  the  book 
at  a  child  of  five  for  his  slowness  in  learning  Latin. 
Timothy  Dwight  is  said  to  have  committed  the  alphabet 
in  a  single  lesson  and  could  read  the  Bible  before  four 
and  taught  it  to  his  comrades.  At  six  he  wanted  to 
study  Latin.  Being  denied  he  went  at  it  alone  and 
studied  through  the  Latin  grammar  twice.  He  would 
have  been  ready  for  college  at  eight  if  the  grammar 
school  had  not  closed.  In  1799  a  boy  of  fourteen  was 
graduated  at  Rhode  Island  College. 

In  other  respects  than  education  and  religion  pre- 
cocity was  taken  for  granted.     Until  the  Revolution 


Children  in  the  New  England  Family        in 

boys  became  men  at  sixteen,  paid  taxes,  and  served  in 
the  militia.  Girl  orphans  were  permitted  at  fourteen 
to  choose  their  own  guardians.  When  Governor  Win- 
throp's  son  John  was  only  fourteen,  the  governor  made 
the  boy  executor  of  his  will.  He  evidently  considered 
a  boy  of  fourteen  or  fifteen  mature.^^  Such  curtailment 
of  infancy  as  colonial  precocity  exhibits  evidences  the 
simplicity  of  colonial  civilization.  It  was  a  crime 
against  childhood.  Children  of  to-day  would  be  nervous 
invalids  if  they  were  driven  by  uncanny  fear  to  morbid 
introspection  such  as  afflicted  the  young  Puritans. 

Those  that  survived  infancy,  tho  probably  as  dearly 
loved  as  are  children  to-day,  were  denied  all  the  normal 
sources  of  joy  and  happiness.  Childish  manners  were 
formal  and  meek.  Parents  were  addressed  as  "esteemed 
parent"  or  "honored  sir  and  madam."  A  pert  child 
was  generally  thought  to  be  delirious  or  bewitched. 
One  son  of  a  stern  Puritan  said  that  "he  never  ventured 
to  make  a  boy's  simple  request  of  his  father,  to  ofifer  so 
much  as  a  petition  for  a  knife  or  a  ball  without  putting 
it  into  writing  in  due  form."  Children  were  now  and 
then  favored  with  a  visit  to  some  sainted  person  who 
would  bless  them  or  warn  them  to  flee  from  the  wrath 
to  come.  Everybody  went  to  funerals.  There  was  a 
dire  scarcity  of  anything  worthy  to  be  called  children's 
literature.  The  children  of  to-day  would  hardly  be  at- 
tracted by  such  advertisements  as  these:  "Small  book 
in  easey  verse  Very  Suitable  for  Children,  entitled  the 
Prodigal  Daughter  or  the  Disobedient  Lady  Re- 
claimed: adorned  with  curious  cuts,  Price  6d."  "A 
Token  for  Children.  Being  the  exact  account  of  the 
Conversation  and  Holy  and  Exemplary  Lives  of  several 

■'^  Compare  Earle,  Child  Life  in  Colonial  Days,  chapter  ix,  "Childish 
Precocity." 


112       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

Young  Children."  Or  Mather's  work,  "Some  Examples 
of  Children  in  whom  the  Fear  of  God  was  remarkably 
Budding  before  they  died ;  in  several  Parts  of  New  Eng- 
land." How  glad  the  children,  after  the  first  quarter 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  must  have  been  to  get  Mother 
Goose\  Of  course  to  the  stern  Puritan,  inexorably 
utilitarian,  what  afiforded  amusement  seemed  sinful. 
Child  nature  being  depraved  and  wicked  must  be  dam- 
pered.     Play  instincts  were  inexcusable. 

The  sense  of  parental  responsibility  was  strong. 
When  Cotton  Mather's  child  fell  into  the  fire  the  father 
wrote :  "Alas  for  my  sin,  the  just  God  throws  my  child 
into  the  fire!"  A  similar  disaster  led  him  to  preach  on 
"What  use  ought  parents  to  make  of  disasters  befalling 
their  children?"  Again  he  was  led  to  preach  on  "What 
parents  are  to  do  for  the  salvation  of  their  children." 

Home  discipline  was  relentless.  Stern  and  arbitrary 
command  compelled  obedience,  submissive  and  gen- 
erally complete.  Reverence  and  respect  for  older  per- 
sons were  seldom  withheld.  Adults  believed  in  the  rod 
as  an  instrument  of  subjugation.  John  Robinson,  the 
Pilgrim  preacher,  said. 

Surely  there  is  in  all  children  (tho  not  alike)  a  stubbernes  and 
stoutnes  of  minde  arising  from  naturall  pride  which  must  in 
the  first  place  be  broken  and  beaten  down  that  so  the  founda- 
tion of  their  education  being  layd  in  humilitie  and  tractable- 
ness  other  virtues  may  in  their  time  be  built  thereon.  It  is 
commendable  in  a  horse  that  he  be  stout  and  stomackfull  being 
never  left  to  his  own  government,  but  always  to  have  his  rider 
on  his  back  and  his  bit  in  his  mouth,  but  who  would  have  his 
child  like  his  horse  in  his  brutishnes? 

A  little  book  of  etiquette  apparently  widely  circu- 
lated in  colonial  days  contains  directions  for  the  table 
behavior  of  children: 

Never  sit  down  at  the  table  till  asked,  and  after  the  blessing. 


Children  in  the  New  England  Family        113 

Ask  for  nothing;  tarry  till  it  be  offered  thee.  Speak  not.  Bite 
not  thy  bread  but  break  it.  Take  salt  only  with  a  clean  knife. 
Dip  not  the  meat  in  the  same.  Hold  not  thy  knife  upright  but 
sloping,  and  lay  it  down  at  right  hand  of  plate  with  blade  on 
plate.  Look  not  earnestly  at  any  other  that  is  eating.  When 
moderately  satisfied  leave  the  table.  Sing  not,  hum  not,  wriggle 
not.  Spit  nowhere  in  the  room  but  in  the  corner.  .  .  When 
any  speak  to  thee,  stand  up.  Say  not  I  have  heard  it  before. 
Never  endeavor  to  help  him  out  if  he  tell  it  not  right.  Snigger 
not;  never  question  the  truth  of  it. 

Some  children  were  indulged  and  parents  did  the 
best  they  could  for  them  and  grieved  at  their  death. 
Touchingly  significant  is  the  brief  note  left  by  one: 
"Fifty  years  ago  today  died  my  little  John,  Alas!" 
Giles  Corry  refused  to  plead  on  the  charge  of  witch- 
craft because  he  had  been  informed  that  if  convicted  of 
felony  the  inheritance  of  his  children  would  be  forfeit 
to  the  crown.  Even  the  discipline  of  eminent  Puritans 
reveals  kindliness  of  spirit.  Cotton  Mather  writes: 
"My  children  are  with  me.  I  have  now  three  of  them 
(and  my  wife's  kinswoman)  at  my  table.  .  .  I  will 
have  my  table  talk  facetious  as  well  as  instructive,  and 
use  much  freedom  of  conversation  in  it.  .  .  I  will 
sett  before  them  some  sentences  of  the  Bible."  He  pub- 
lished a  booklet  (which  was  "much  desired")  on  A 
family  Well-ordered;  or  an  Essay  to  Render  Parents 
and  Children  Happy  in  one  another.  He  tries  to  train 
his  children  in  goodness  and  piety. 

I  first  beget  in  them  a  high  opinion  of  their  father's  love  to 
them,  and  of  his  being  best  able  to  judge,  what  shall  be  good  for 
them.  Then  I  make  them  sensible,  tis  a  folly  for  them  to  pre- 
tend unto  any  witt  and  will  of  their  own  .  .  .  my  word 
must  be  their  law.  .  .  I  would  never  come  to  give  a  child  a 
blow;  except  in  case  of  obstinacy  or  some  gross  enormity.  To 
be  chased  for  a  while  out  of  my  presence  I  would  make  to  be 
looked  upon,  as  the  sorest  punishment  in  the  family.     .     .     The 


114       Tilt'  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

stanch  way  of  Education,  carried  on  with  raving  and  kicking 
and  scourging  (in  schools  as  well  as  families)  tis  abominable; 
and  a  dreadful  judgment  of  God  upon  the  world.  .  .  [He 
prays  with  his  children;  sets  before  them  heaven  and  hell,  etc. 
He  would  use  their  games  to  make  them  think  of  piety  and 
goodness.]  I  would  put  my  children  upon  chusing  their  sev- 
eral ways  of  usefulness,  and  enkindle  in  them  as  far  as  I  can,  a 
mighty  desire  of  being  useful  in  the  world,  and  assist  them  unto 
the  uttermost." 

It  was  a  child  of  this  man  that,  dying  at  two  years  and 
seven  months,  "made  a  most  edifying  end  in  prayer  and 
praise." 

The  reverend  Jonathan  Edwards  of  Northhampton 
was  careful  and  thoro  in  his  paternal  discipline  but 
his  children  reverenced,  esteemed,  and  loved  him. 

He  took  the  utmost  care  to  begin  his  government  of  them  when 
they  were  very  young.  When  they  first  discovered  any  degree 
of  self-will  and  stubbornness,  he  would  attend  to  them  until  he 
had  thoroly  subdued  them,  and  brought  them  to  submit.  Such 
prudent  discipline,  exercised  with  the  greatest  calmness,  being 
repeated  once  or  twice,  was  generally  sufficient  for  that  child, 
and  efiEectually  established  his  parental  authority,  and  produced 
a  cheerful  obedience  ever  after.  [He  conversed  with  his  chil- 
dren] singly  and  closely  about  the  concerns  of  their  souls. 
In  the  evening  after  tea,  he  customarily  sat  in  the  parlor  with 
his  family,  for  an  hour,  unbending  from  the  severity  of  study, 
entering  freely  into  the  feelings  and  concerns  of  his  children, 
and  relaxing  into  cheerful  and  animated  conversation,  accom- 
panied frequently  with  sprightly  remarks,  sallies  of  wit  and  hu- 
mor. But  before  retiring  to  his  study,  he  usually  gave  the  con- 
versation by  degrees  a  more  serious  turn,  addressing  his  children 
with  great  tenderness  and  earnestness  on  the  subject  of  their  sal- 
vation. .  .  He  was  utterly  opposed  to  everj^thing  like  unrea- 
sonable hours  on  the  part  of  young  people,  in  their  visiting  and 
amusements,  which  he  regarded  as  a  dangerous  step  toward  cor- 
rupting them  and  bringing  them  to  ruin.  And  he  thought  the 
excuse  ofifered  by  many  parents  for  tolerating  this  practise  in 
their  children  -  that  it  is  the  custom,  and  that  the  children  of 


Children  in  the  New  England  Family        115 

other  people  are  allowed  thus  to  practise,  and  therefore  it  is  dif- 
ficult and  even  impossible  to  restrain  them  —  was  insufficient  and 
frivolous,  and  manifested  a  great  degree  of  stupidity-.  .  .  He 
allowed  none  of  his  children  to  be  absent  from  home  after  nine 
o'clock  at  night,  when  they  went  abroad  to  see  their  friends  and 
companions;  neither  were  they  allowed  to  sit  up  much  after 
that  time,  in  his  own  house,  when  any  of  their  friends  came  to 
visit  them.  If  any  gentleman  desired  to  address  either  of  his 
daughters,  after  the  requisite  introduction  and  preliminaries,  he 
was  allowed  all  proper  opportunities  of  becoming  thoroly  ac- 
quainted with  the  manners  and  disposition  of  the  young  lady, 
but  must  not  intrude  on  the  customary  hours  of  rest  and  sleep, 
nor  on  the  religion  and  order  of  the  family. 

We  are  expected  to  believe  that  the  Edwards  young 
people  went  betimes  cheerfully  to  bed.  Incidentally 
the  passage  throws  significant  side-light  on  the  relaxing 
of  the  hold  of  Puritanism.  Many  a  stern  Puritan  fam- 
ily in  America  succumbed  to  the  easier  ways  of  the 
Church  of  England. 

The  letters  of  John  Adams  are  full  of  interest  from 
the  standpoint  of  family  training  at  the  end  of  the 
colonial  period.  Thus  in  1774,  he  writes  to  his  wife: 
Let  us  .  .  .  my  dear  partner,  from  that  affection  which  we 
feel  for  our  lovely  babes,  apply  ourselves,  by  every  way  we  can, 
to  the  cultivation  of  our  farm.  .  .  Above  all  cares  of  this 
life,  let  our  ardent  anxiety  be  to  mould  the  minds  and  manners 
of  our  children.  [Again]  :  Pray  remember  me  to  my  dear 
little  babes,  whom  I  long  to  see  running  to  meet  me  and  climb 
up  upon  me  under  the  smiles  of  their  mother.  .  .  For  God's 
sake  make  your  children  hardy,  active,  and  industrious',  for 
strength,  activity,  and  industry  will  be  their  only  resource  and 
dependence.  [Once  more]  :  Remember  my  tender  love  to  little 
Abby;  tell  her  she  must  write  me  a  letter.  .  .  I  am  charmed 
with  your  amusement  with  our  little  Johnny.  Tell  him  I  am 
glad  to  hear  he  is  so  good  a  boy  as  to  read  to  his  mamma  for 
her  entertainment,  and  to  keep  himself  out  of  the  company  of 
rude  children.  Tell  him  I  hope  to  hear  a  good  account  of  his 
accidence  and  nomenclature  when  I  return.     .     .     The  educa- 


ii6       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

tion  of  our  children  is  never  out  of  my  mind.     Train  them  to 
virtue.      Habituate  them  to  industr,v,  activity,  and  spirit. 

Later  he  is  distressed  at  illness  of  the  family,  and  la- 
ments the  death  of  his  mother-in-law.  He  says  the 
children  were  better  for  her  influence.  John  Quincy, 
aged  seven,  writes  a  bright  little  letter  to  his  father  tell- 
ing of  his  lessons  and  reading  and  hope  to  see  his  father. 
When  the  boy  is  ten,  the  father  writes  to  him  recom- 
mending certain  formidable  historical  reading.  His 
letters  to  his  wife  refer  repeatedly  to  the  need  of  train- 
ing the  children  in  good  habits.  She  says  on  one 
occasion: 

I  often  point  them  to  their  sire  - 

engaged  in  a  corrupted  state, 
wrestling  with  vice  and  faction. 

These  letters  disclose  a  human  interest  and  spirit  in  fam- 
ily life,  which,  while  not  lax,  is  remote  from  fanaticism. 
In  addition  to  home  training  the  New  Englanders 
provided  schools.  Each  town  had  a  school.  By  1649 
some  degree  of  education  was  compulsory  in  every 
New  England  colony  except  Rhode  Island.  School  in 
New  England  ran  seven  or  eight  hours  a  day.  Chil- 
dren took  a  live  interest  if  we  may  judge  by  a  juvenile 
couplet - 

New  teachers,  new  laws, 
New  devils,  sharp  claws. 

Pioneering  caused  school  interest  to  wane.  In  conse- 
quence of  the  loss  of  six  hundred  men  in  King  Philip's 
War,  schools  were  abandoned. 

From  Judge  Sewall  and  Jonathan  Edwards  comes 
the  impression  that  Puritan  children  were  priggish, 
morbid,  and  doleful.  Thanks  to  these  w^orthy  men  the 
odd  little  creatures  whose  pictures  have  descended  to  us 
figure  in  our  fancy  as  intolerable  theologs.  But  the 
evidence  is  ample  that  the  children  of  the  Puritans  no 


Children  in  the  New  England  Family        117 

more  relished  the  weary  sermons  beyond  their  depths, 
with  their  lurid  threats  of  hell,  than  children  of  to-day 
relish  the  imprisonment  of  the  rigid  schoolroom  or  the 
tedium  of  Sunday  clothes.  Boys  and  even  girls  at 
church  were  a  pest  to  the  parson  and  had  to  be  put  un- 
der town  surveillance.  Laws  passed  at  the  close  of 
King  Philip's  War  confessed  that  the  war  was  a  judg- 
ment on  the  colony  for  the  "disorder  and  rudeness  of 
youth  in  many  congregations  in  time  of  the  worship  of 
God,  whereby  sin  and  profaneness  is  greatly  increased." 
John  Pike  of  Dedham  received  sixteen  shillings  in  1723 
for  "keeping  the  boys  in  subjection  six  months."  When 
rehired  he  exacted  twice  as  much.  Similar  episodes 
took  place  every^vhere.  In  Harwich,  it  was  voted 
"that  the  same  course  be  pursued  with  the  girls"  as  with 
the  boys,  and  at  Farmington  in  1772: 

Whereas  indecencies  are  practised  by  the  young  people  in  time 
of  Publick  Worship  by  frequently  passing  and  repassing  by  one 
another  in  the  galleries;  intermingh'ng  sexes  to  the  great  dis- 
turbance of  many  serious  and  well  minded  people  -  Resolved 
that  each  of  us  that  are  heads  of  families  will  use  our  utmost 
endeavor  to  suppress  the  evils. 

One  might  suppose  that  the  corralling  of  the  boys  on 
the  back  benches  at  church  promoted  the  "Rude  and 
Idel  Behavior"  which  a  Connecticut  justice  entered  in 
his  note-book  thus: 

Smiling  and  larfing  and  intlseing  others  to  the  same  evil.  .  . 
Pulling  the  hair  of  his  nayber  Veroni  Simkins  in  the  time  of 
public  worship.  .  .  Throwing  Sister  Penticost  Perkins  on 
the  ice  on  the  Sabath  day  between  the  meeting  hows  and  his 
place  of  abode. 

But  in  spite  of  strict  family  discipline  human  nature 
in  the  colonies  was  much  like  human  nature  elsewhere. 
The  amusements  of  the  young  were  sometimes  scandal- 
ous.    There  are  numerous  accounts  of  "mixt  dancings, 


ii8       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

unlawful  gamings,  extravagance  in  dress,  light  be- 
havior" and  such-like  offences.  As  early  as  1657,  Bos- 
ton deemed  it  wise  to  pass  a  law  as  follows: 

Forasmuch  as  sundry  complaints  are  made  that  several  persons 
have  received  hurt  by  boys  and  young  men  playing  at  football  in 
the  streets,  these  therefore  are  to  enjoin  that  none  be  found  at 
that  game  in  any  of  the  streets,  lanes  or  enclosures  of  this  town 
under  the  penalty  of  20s.  for  every  such  oifence. 

Sewall  writes  on  one  occasion : 

Joseph  threw  a  knop  of  brass,  and  hit  his  sister  Betty  on  the 
forehead  so  as  to  make  it  bleed  and  swell;  upon  which  and  for 
his  playing  at  prayer  time,  and  eating  when  return  thanks,  I 
whipped  him  pretty  smartly. 

But  tho  the  judge  could  manage  his  own  children  his 
graceless  grandchildren  were  a  sore  trial.  Sam  Hirst, 
the  son  of  timid  Betty,  lived  with  his  grandfather  for 
a  while.     On  April  i,  1719,  the  Judge  wrote: 

In  the  morning  I  dehorted  Sam  Hirst  and  Grendall  Rawson 
from  playing  idle  tricks  because  'twas  first  of  April:  They 
were  the  greatest  fools  that  did  so.  [March  15,  1725]:  Sam 
Hirst  got  up  betime  in  the  morning,  and  took  Ben  Swett  with 
him  and  went  into  the  Comon  to  play  Wicket.  Went  before 
anybody  was  up,  left  the  door  open :  Sam  came  not  to  prayer 
at  which  I  was  much  displeased.  [Two  days  later]  :  Did  the 
like  again,  but  took  not  Ben  with  him.  I  told  him  he  could 
not  lodge  here  practicing  thus.  So  he  log'd  elsewher. 

"What  little  hope  of  a  happy  generation  after  us," 
runs  a  seventeenth  century  plaint,  "when  many  among 
us  scarcely  know  how  to  teach  their  children  man- 
ners!" Extreme  Puritanism,  indeed,  did  not  last  long 
in  full  strength.  The  reverend  Ezekiel  Rogers,  a  Pur- 
itan preacher  who  lived  at  the  time  when  extreme  Puri- 
tanism was  waning,  wTote  in  1657: 

Do  your  children  and  family  grow  more  godly?  I  find  great- 
est trouble  and  grief  about  the  rising  generation.    Young  people 


Children   in   the  New  England  Family        119 

are  little  stirred  here ;  but  they  strengthen  one  another  in  evil  by 
example  and  by  counsel.  Much  ado  have  I  with  my  own 
family. 

Just  before  the  Revolution  a  little  girl  of  eight  came 
from  the  Barbadoes  to  her  grandmother  in  Boston  to 
attend  school.  The  young  lady  left  her  grandmother's 
roof  in  great  indignation  because  she  was  not  allowed 
wine  at  all  her  meals.  Her  parents  took  her  part  say- 
ing that  she  had  been  reared  as  a  lady  and  must  have 
wine  when  she  wished  it.  Thus  imported  looseness, 
together  with  the  economic  advance  that  relegated  as- 
ceticism to  the  rear,  contributed  in  the  later  days  to  the 
decline  of  Puritan  rigor. 

Colonial  law  upheld,  of  course,  paternal  authority. 
A  Massachusetts  law  reads  thus :  "Forasmuch  as  it  ap- 
peareth  by  too  much  experience,  that  divers  children 
and  servants  do  behave  themselves  disobediently  and 
disorderly,  towards  their  parents,  masters,  and  govern- 
ors [and  this  not  many  years  after  the  founding  of  Mas- 
sachusetts!] to  the  disturbance  of  families,  and  discour- 
agement of  such  parents  and  governors,"  authority  is 
given  to  magistrates  to  summon  offenders  and  have 
them  punished  by  whipping  or  otherwise.  Further- 
more, "upon  information  of  diverse  loose,  vaine,  and 
corrupt  persons  .  .  .  which  insinuate  themselves 
into  the  fellowship  of  the  young  people  .  .  .  draw- 
ing them  both  by  night  and  by  day  from  their  callings, 
studyes,  and  honest  occupations  and  lodging  places  to 
the  dishonor  of  God  and  grief  of  their  parents,  masters, 
teachers,"  therefore  "persons  under  government  not  to 
be  entertained  in  common  houses."  New  Haven  made 
persons  trading  with  or  abetting  minors,  etc.,  liable  to 
punishment.  Massachusetts  in  1694-1695  made  a  furth- 
er law:    "Whereas  complaint  has  been  made  by  sundry 


120       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

inhabitants  of  this  province  that  have  sustained  great 
damage  by  their  sons  and  servants  deserting  their  ser- 
vice without  consent  of  their  parents  or  masters,"  being 
encouraged  aboard  ships,  a  penalty  is  imposed  on  ship- 
masters for  entertaining  sons  or  servants  without  leave. 
Massachusetts  had  a  law  against  excess  of  apparel  on 
children  and  servants.  ''Also  if  any  taylor  shall  make 
or  fashion  any  garment  for  such  children  and  serv- 
ants .  .  .  contrary  to  the  mind  and  order  of  their 
parents  and  governors;  every  such  taylor  shall  for  the 
first  ofifence  be  admonished;  and  for  the  second  .  .  . 
forfeit  double  the  value  of  such  apparel  or  garment." 

The  law  had  to  take  cognizance  of  the  fact  that  Amer- 
ica was  a  sort  of  reformatory  for  parents  in  the  old 
country  to  use.  As  early  as  1647  a  law  was  passed  as 
follows:  "Whereas  sundry  gentlemen  of  quality  and 
others,  ofttimes  send  over  their  children  unto  this  coun- 
try, to  some  friends  here,  hoping  (at  least)  thereby  to 
prevent  their  extravagant  and  notoris  courses,"  but  they 
manage  to  get  credit  and  go  on  in  extravagance  to  the 
grief  of  friends,  therefore  merchants  giving  credit  with- 
out authority  shall  lose  the  debt. 

For  incorrigible  disobedience  to  parents  the  colo- 
nists, in  accordance  with  Moses  and  Calvin,  prescribed 
the  death  penalty.     The  Connecticut  statute  reads: 
Forasmuch  as  incorrigibleness  is  also  adjudged  to  be  a  sin  of 
death,  but  noe  law  yet  amongst  us  established  for  the  execution 
thereof     .     .     .     it  is  ordered,  that  whatsoever  child  or  serv- 
ant    .     .     .     shall  be  convicted  of  any  stubborn  or  rebellious 
caridge  against  their  parents  or  gouernors,  wch  is  a  forerunner 
of  the  forementioned  evell,  the  gouernor  or  any  two  magistrats 
haue  liberty  and  power  fro  this  court  to  commit  such  prson  or 
prsons  to  the  house  of  correction,  and  there  to  remayne  under 
hard  labor  and  severe  punishment,  so  long  as  the  court  or  the 
major  part  of  the  magistrats  shall  judge  meet. 


Children  in  the  New  England  Family        121 
The  Piscataqua  colony  had  the  following  law: 

If  any  child  or  children  above  16  yrs.  old  of  competent  under- 
standing, shall  curse  or  smite  their  natural  father  or  mother,  he 
or  they  shall  be  put  to  death  unless  it  can  be  sufficiently  testi- 
fied that  the  parents  have  been  very  unchristianly  negligent  of 
the  education  of  such  children.  ,  .  If  any  man  have  a  re- 
bellious or  stubborne  son  of  sufficient  years  and  understanding, 
viz.  16  years  of  age  or  upwards,  wch  shall  not  obey  the  voice  of 
his  father  or  the  voice  of  his  mother,  yt  when  they  have  chas- 
tened him  will  not  hearken  unto  them  .  .  .  such  son  shall 
be  put  to  death,  or  otherwise  severely  punished. 

The  Bay  Colony  statute  was  to  the  same  effect.  The 
capital  laws  of  Connecticut  recognize  an  additional 
mitigating  circumstance  in  case  of  the  smiting,  etc.,  of 
parents :  "unless  .  .  .  the  parents  .  .  .  so  pro- 
voke them  by  extreme  and  cruell  correction  that  they 
have  been  forced  thereunto  to  preserve  themselves  from 
death,  maiming."  This  law  is  buttressed  with  proof 
texts.  There  is  no  record  of  the  actual  infliction  of  the 
death  penalty  in  Massachusetts  and  probably  none  else- 
where. 

Regarding  the  distribution  of  property  among  chil- 
dren we  find  that  the  Puritan  colonists  legally  repudiat- 
ed the  feudal  principle  of  male  preference  and  primo- 
geniture, tho  granting  a  double  portion  to  the  eldest 
son  (in  some  colonies).  In  1627  De  Rasures,  a  visitor 
to  Plymouth,  found  that  "In  the  inheritance  they  place 
all  the  children  in  one  degree,  only  the  eldest  son  has 
an  acknowledgement  for  his  seniority  of  birth."  The 
Massachusetts  law  of  1641  provides  that 

When  parents  die  intestate,  the  elder  sonne  shall  have  a  double 
portion  of  his  whole  estate  reall  and  personal!,  unless  the  gen- 
eral court  upon  just  cause  alleged  shall  judge  otherwise.  When 
parents  die  intestate  having  noe  heirs  male  of  their  bodies  their 
daughters  shall  inherit  as  copartners,  unless  the  general  court 
upon  just  reason  shall  judge  otherwise. 


122       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

Connecticut  law  of  1699  directs  that  children  shall  share 
equally  in  the  estate  of  intestates.  An  example  of  the 
principle  of  equality  is  found  in  the  Plymouth  records. 
The  court  ordered  in  the  case  of  a  man  dying  without 
will  that  after  the  wife's  share  was  deducted  "the  young- 
er children  bee  made  equal  to  the  elder  in  what  they 
have  had,  and  for  the  remainder,  after  that  is  done,  that 
it  bee  equally  devided  amongst  all  the  children  in  equall 
proportions."  The  special  privilege  of  the  eldest  son 
did  not  last  long. 

The  usage  of  equal  distribution  may  be  derived  from 
"the  custom  of  Gavelkind  in  Kent"  from  which  region 
many  of  the  first  colonists  of  New  England,  especially 
Connecticut,  came.  Campbell,  however,  traces  back 
to  Dutch  law  our  principle  of  equal  division  of  land 
among  the  children  of  an  intestate."*^  His  interpretation, 
tho  suggestive,  is  too  superficial.  The  decline  of  male 
primogeniture  is  essentially  a  phenomenon  of  the  pass- 
ing of  feudalism -a  system  of  society  based  on  the  own- 
ership of  land,  limited  in  quantity  and  demanding  mil- 
itary service  of  the  holders.  As  soon  as  society  ceased 
to  center  in  military  land-holding,  the  foundation  of 
male  primogeniture  crumbled.  In  America  land  was! 
too  abundant  to  become  an  insignium  of  nobility.  In! 
the  North  the  aristocracy  was  based  on  the  ownership 
of  increasable  commodities  and  commerce  rather  than 
of  land;  society  was  only  incidentally  and  temporarily 
military;  so  there  was  no  need  of  limiting  inheritance 
to  the  first-born  male.  Campbell's  account  of  Dutch 
usage  itself  hints  at  the  connection  of  primogeniture 
with  feudal  institutions.  Our  interpretation  gets  to  the 
bottom  of  that  association. 

58  Campbell.     The   Puritan   in   Holland,  England,   and  America,   vol.    ii, 
452-453- 


Children  in  the  New  England  Family        123 

In  so  far  as  the  old  aristocracy  lingered  English  tra- 
ditions as  to  primogeniture  retained  their  hold  inas- 
much as  parents  could  use  their  discretion  if  they  made 
a  will.  Not  always  were  estates  divided  evenly  in  New 
England.  Usually  the  sons  were  set  above  the  daugh- 
ters. The  larger  the  estate  the  greater  was  likely  to  be 
the  discrimination.  The  father  of  Sir  William  Pep- 
perell  left  his  daughters  five  hundred  pounds  each  in 
addition  to  previous  advances.  Then,  after  a  few  be- 
quests, the  whole  large  estate  went  to  the  future  baronet, 
whereat  the  daughters  and  sons-in-law  were  greatly  dis- 
appointed. It  was  the  theory  in  Rhode  Island  that  the 
father  should  provide  for  his  sons  and  thus  for  other 
men's  daughters. 

Disinheritance  was  sometimes  used  as  a  means  of  dis- 
cipline. The  marriage  of  a  daughter  with  an  unwel- 
come swain  was  often  prohibited  by  will :  "not  to  suffer 
her  to  be  circumvented  and  cast  away  upon  a  swagger- 
ing gentleman." 

One  might  wonder  how  parents  could  provide  for 
twelve,  eighteen,  or  twenty-four  children  let  alone  have 
anything  to  leave  them.  But  children  of  that  period 
were  soon  able  to  contribute  to  the  family  store.  When 
a  host  of  the  children  were  boys  it  was  doubtless  a  relief 
to  the  weary  mother  when  a  lot  of  them  went  to  sea,  as 
in  an  eighteenth  century  news  item  from  Portsmouth, 
New  Hampshire: 

There  are  now  livinjz;  in  this  town,  a  lady  and  gentleman  who 
have  not  been  married  more  than  twenty  years,  and  yet  have 
eighteen  sons ;  ten  of  whom  are  at  sea,  and  eight  at  home  with 
their  parents. 

But  it  must  have  been  a  problem  for  the  reverend  Abi- 
jah  Weld  to  rear  his  fifteen  children  on  his  salary 
of  about  two  hundred  and  twenty  dollars,  tho  he  had 


124       ^^'^'  ^nierican  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

a  small  farm.  Moreover  he  entertained  freely  and 
gave  to  the  poor.  Reverend  Moses  Fisher  with  his 
sixteen  children  and  a  salary  never  over  ninety  pounds, 
usually  only  sixty  pounds  paid  mainly  in  corn  and  wood, 
managed  to  send  three  sons  to  college  and  he  married 
off  all  his  daughters. 

But  high  fecundity  and  child  labor  are  consorts.  The 
colonial  home  was  a  little  world  within  whose  bounds 
woman  found  her  life,  under  whose  roof  the  children 
could,  if  need  were,  learn  all  that  was  necessary  for  their 
future  careers.  The  Puritans,  as  has  been  seen,  were 
strong  for  the  training  of  children  for  their  duties  here 
and  beyond.  Higgeson  in  New  England's  Plantation 
(1629)  tells  that  "Little  children  here  by  setting  of 
corne  may  earne  much  more  than  their  own  mainte- 
nance." Less  than  a  decade  after  Higgeson's  rejoicing 
at  the  possibilities  of  child  labor  in  agriculture,  John- 
son was  praising  the  people  of  Rowley  who  "built  a 
fulling  mill  and  caused  their  little  ones  to  be  very  dili- 
gent in  spinning  cotton  wool."  The  ruling  element 
was  not  disposed  to  allow  idleness  among  the  poor.  In 
Plymouth  in  1641  it  was  ordered  "that  those  that  have 
relief  from  the  townes  and  have  children  and  doe  not 
ymploy  them  that  then  it  shal  be  lawful  for  the  Towne- 
ship  to  take  order  that  those  children  shal  be  put  to 
worke  in  fitting  ymployment  according  to  their  strength 
and  abilities  or  placed  out  by  the  Townes."  In  Massa- 
chusetts, 1641,  "it  is  desired  and  expected  that  all  mas- 
ters of  families  should  see  that  their  children  and  serv- 
ants should  be  industriously  implied  so  as  that  morn- 
ings and  evenings  and  other  seasons  may  not  bee  lost  as 
formerly  they  have  bene."  In  1642  the  orders  were 
more  definite.  To  keep  cattle,  alone,  was  not  to  be  in- 
dustrious in  the  Puritan  sense  of  the  word,  and  such 


Children  in  the  New  England  Family        125 

children  are  also  to  "bee  set  to  some  other  impliment 
withall  as  spinning  upon  the  rock,  knitting,  weveing 
tape,  etc."  The  same  year  it  was  decreed  that  all  un- 
ruly poor  children  were  to  be  bound  out  for  service.  A 
law  of  the  general  court  of  1643  authorizes  constables 
to  whip  runaway  bound  boys.  New  England's  First 
Fruits  (1642)  appeals  to  Englishmen  to  stir  up  "some 
well-minded  to  cloath  and  transport  over  poore  chil- 
dren, boyes  and  girles,  which  may  be  a  great  mercy  to 
their  bodies  and  soules." 

In  1656  Hull  records  that  "Twenty  persons,  or  about 
such  a  number,  did  agree  to  raise  a  stock  to  procure  a 
house  and  materials  to  improve  the  children  and  youth 
of  the  town  of  Boston  (which  want  employment)  in  the 
several  manufactures."  It  was  considered  a  public 
duty  in  Massachusetts  to  provide  for  the  training  of 
children  in  learning  and  in  "labor  and  other  employ- 
ments which  may  bee  profitable  to  the  commonwealth." 
It  was  probably  scarcity  of  clothing  that  led  to  the  law  , 
"that  all  hands  not  necessarily  imployed  on  other  occa- 
sions as  women,  girls,  and  boyes,  shall  .  .  .  spin  ) 
according  to  their  skill  and  ability,  and  that  the  select-  ; 
men  in  every  town,  do  consider  the  condition  and  ca- 
pacity of  every  family,  and  accordingly  do  assess  them 
at  one  or  more  spinners."  The  town  of  Boston  in  1672 
notified  a  number  of  persons  to  "dispose  of  their  severall 
children  .  .  .  abroad  for  servants,  to  serve  by  in- 
dentures according  to  their  ages  and  capacities,"  and  if 
they  neglect  so  to  do  "the  selectmen  will  take  their  said 
children  from  them  and  place  them  with  such  masters 
as  they  shall  provide  according  as  the  law  directs."  The 
children  are  both  girls  and  boys  from  eight  years  up. 
The  records  of  many  towns  go  to  show  that  the  practice 
of  binding  out  the  children  of  the  poor  was  wide-spread. 


126       Tlw  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

In  Boston,  1682,  a  workhouse  was  ordered  built  to  em- 
ploy children  who  "shamefully  spend  their  time  in  the 
streets."  Gabriel  Harris  died  in  1684,  leaving  four 
looms;  his  six  children  took  part  in  the  work.  Boston  in 
1720  appointed  a  committee  which  recommended  that 
twenty  spinning-wheels  be  provided  for  such  children 
as  should  be  sent  from  the  almshouse  and  a  Massachu- 
setts act  of  the  same  year  provided  that  all  children  of 
the  poor  whose  parents,  whether  receiving  alms  or  not, 
were  unable  to  maintain  them  were  to  be  set  to  work  or 
bound  out  by  the  selectmen  or  overseers,  the  males  till 
twenty-one,  the  females  till  eighteen.  Fifty  years  later 
William  Molineux,  of  Boston,  asked  the  legislature  for 
assistance  in  his  plan  for  "manufacturing  the  children's 
labor  into  wearing  apparel"  and  "employing  young 
females  from  eight  years  old  and  upward." 

The  Connecticut  system  of  dealing  with  the  children 
of  the  poor  was  similar  to  that  of  Massachusetts. 

Probably  children  were  very  much  over\vorked  in 
these  early  days  before  the  factory  system.  But  in  do- 
mestic industries  on  isolated  farms  their  condition  was 
less  conspicuous  than  when,  later,  children  came  to  be 
massed  in  great  factories.  The  custom  of  giving  all 
Saturday  as  school  holiday  seems  to  have  grow^n  out  of 
the  need  of  children  at  home  to  make  Puritanical  prep- 
aration for  Sabbath. 

The  industries  of  children  were  varied  and  impor- 
tant. Some  have  been  already  mentioned.  There  was 
much  work  on  the  farm  even  for  small  children.  They 
sowed  seed,  weeded  flax  fields,  hetchelled  flax,  combed 
wool.  Girls  of  six  could  spin  flax.  The  boy  had  to 
rise  early  and  do  chores  before  he  went  to  school.  He 
must  be  diligent  in  study  and  in  the  evening  do  more 
chores.     His  whole  time  out  of  school  was  occupied 


Children  in  the  New  England  Family        127 

with  bringing  in  fuel,  cutting  feed,  feeding  pigs,  water- 
ing horses,  picking  berries,  gathering  vegetables,  spool- 
ing yarn.  There  was  sawing  and  wood  chopping,  and 
the  making  of  brooms  for  which  he  got  six  cents  each. 
Splitting  shoe  pegs  was  another  job;  setting  card  teeth, 
etc.  Such  work  provided  a  phase  of  education  that 
modern  educators  find  it  hard  to  replace  now  that  in- 
dustry has  forsaken  the  home. 

In  putting  the  boys  early  to  some  useful  handicraft 
the  Puritans  imitated  their  favorite  model,  the  He- 
brews. In  Puritan  ethics,  idleness  was  a  serious  sin. 
But  colonial  child  labor  was  fundamentally  a  response 
to  a  condition  rather  than  to  a  theory.  It  was  a  com- 
pliance with  the  exigencies  of  the  case.  The  rigor  of 
the  struggle  for  existence  in  early  New  England  made 
impossible  the  prolongation  of  infancy  that  marks  high 
civilization.  Work  was  abundant ;  but  real  wages  were 
low,  as  prices  were  comparatively  high.  Colonial  in- 
dustry was  far  from  being  a  poor  man's  paradise.  The 
starvation  line  and  the  debtors'  prison  loomed  large. 
Child  labor  was,  at  least  seemingly,  a  colonial  neces- 
sity, aggravated  of  course  by  the  existence  of  an  ex- 
ploiting aristocracy.  The  introduction  of  children 
into  the  early  factories  was  a  natural  sequence  of  the 
colonial  attitude  regarding  child  labor  and  of  the  Puri- 
tan belief  in  the  sin  of  idleness. 


VII.     SEX  SIN  AND  FAMILY  FAILURE  IN 
COLONIAL  NEW  ENGLAND 

Sexual  irregularities  both  before  and  after  marriage 
gave  considerable  concern.  Part  of  the  trouble  was 
associated  with  bundling,  an  antique  folkway  that  found 
new  life  in  the  New  World. 

Bundling"  prevailed  to  a  very  great  extent  in  New 
England  from  a  very  early  time.  It  was  originally 
confined  to  the  lower  classes  or  to  those  that  were  under 
the  necessity  of  strict  economy  in  firewood  and  candle 
light.  Many  of  the  early  dwellings  consisted  of  but 
one  room.  The  wayfaring  friend  must  be  accommo- 
dated, if  only  with  half  a  bed.  The  Abbe  Robin,  who 
was  in  Connecticut  in  1788,  says,  "The  Americans  of 
these  parts  are  very  hospitable;  they  have  commonly 
but  one  bed  in  the  house,  and  the  chaste  spouse,  al- 
though she  were  alone,  would  divide  it  with  her  guest, 
without  hesitation  or  fear."  If  this  remarkable  asser- 
tion be  true  it  is  not  strange  that  careful  mothers  saw 
no  impropriety  in  the  custom  of  allowing  young  men 
and  women  to  lie  together  (without  undressing) .  Evi- 
dently the  usage  was  distinctly  an  economic  phenom- 
enon. Harsh  economic  conditions  denied  leisure  for 
more  seemly  courtship  and  afforded  but  inadequate  fa- 
cilities for  keeping  houses  warm. 

Bundling  was  carried  further  in  Connecticut  and 

^''  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Proceedings,  second  ser.,  vol.  vi,  503- 
510;  Low.  The  American  People,  vol.  i:  Planting  of  a  Nation,  346-3+9; 
Fisher.  Men,  JVomen,  and  Manners  in  Colonial  Times,  vol.  i,  284-290; 
Stiles.  Bundling. 


130       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

Massachusetts  than  elsewhere.  In  Massachusetts  this 
trustful  innocence  did  not  confine  itself  to  the  lower 
classes  it  would  seem.  The  Connecticut  forefathers 
tolerated  it  complacently.  In  early  times  in  New  Eng- 
land, if  we  may  believe  numerous  authorities,  bun- 
dling brought  very  few  unfortunate  results.  The  advo- 
cates of  the  custom  maintained  that  mishaps  in  connec- 
tion with  it  were  rarer  than  in  higher  circles  with  dif- 
ferent methods  of  courtship.  But  at  no  time  did  it  win 
universal  approval.  It  is  easy  for  those  in  comfortable 
circumstances  to  reprobate  as  vices  the  makeshifts  of 
penury. 

Bundling  lingered  long  in  some  places.  It  is  de- 
scribed in  western  Massachusetts  as  late  as  1777.  It 
was  said  to  be  in  some  measure  abolished  along  the 
sea-coast  but  there  a  like  usage  called  "tarrying"  was 
practiced.  Charles  Francis  Adams  believes  that  bun- 
dling continued  even  in  eastern  Massachusetts  and  the 
towns  adjoining  Boston  until  after  the  Revolutionary 
disturbance  and  probably  till  the  beginning  of  the  nine- 
teenth century.  Mrs.  John  Adams  writes,  1784,  of  an 
ocean  voyage:  "What  should  I  have  thought  on  shore  to 
have  laid  myself  down  in  common  with  half  a  dozen 
gentlemen?  We  have  curtains  it  is  true,  and  we  only 
in  part  undress -about  as  much  as  the  Yankee  bun- 
dlers."  It  is  alleged,  indeed,  that  the  practice  has  not 
altogether  passed  away  yet. 

The  menace  of  the  old  usage  became  apparent  after 
the  French  and  Indian  wars  when  the  young  men,  hab- 
ituated in  camp  and  army  to  vice  and  recklessness, 
stripped  bundling  of  its  innocence.  At  last  the  custom 
became  such  a  scandal  that  the  church  was  forced  to 
proceed  to  its  suppression.  Jonathan  Edwards  attacked 
it  in  the  pulpit  and  other  ministers,  who  had  allowed 


Sex  Sin  and  Family  Failure  in  New  England  131 

it  to  go  unnoticed,  joined  in  its  suppression.  At  Ded- 
ham,  only  ten  miles  from  Boston,  the  reverend  Mr. 
Haven,  alarmed  at  the  number  of  cases  of  unlawful 
cohabitation,  preached  at  least  as  late  as  1781  "a  long 
and  memorable  discourse"  in  which  he  dealt  with  the 
"growing  sin"  publicly  from  his  pulpit  attributing  "the 
frequent  recurrence  of  the  fault  to  the  custom  then  prev- 
alent of  females  admitting  young  men  to  their  beds 
who  sought  their  company  with  intentions  of  marriage." 
In  1785  the  reformers  published  in  an  almanac  (then 
the  only  method  of  reaching  great  numbers  of  plebe- 
ians) some  homely  verses  calculated  to  influence  the 
lower  classes.  This  campaign  made  them  self-con- 
scious in  the  matter.  They  began  to  think  that  they 
were  despised  for  their  conduct.  Counter  verses  were 
not  permanently  effective.  But  it  is  easy  to  imagine  the 
vividness  of  the  contest  from  such  stanzas  as 

It  shant  be  so,  they  rage  and  storm 

And  country  girls  in  clusters  swarm, 
And  fly  and  buzz  like  angry  bees, 
And  vow  they'll  bundle  when  they  please. 

Some  mothers,  too,  will  plead  their  cause. 

And  give  their  daughters  great  applause, 
And  tell  them,  'tis  no  sin  nor  shame, 
For  we  your  mothers  did  the  same. 

If  I  wont  take  my  sparks  to  bed 
A  laughing  stock  I  shall  be  made. 

But  where's  the  man  that  fire  can 

Into  his  bosom  take, 
Or  go  through  coals  on  his  foot  soles, 

And  not  a  blister  make? 

But  last  of  all,  up  speaks  romp  Moll 

And  pleads  to  be  excused, 
For  how  can  she  e'er  married  be 

If  bundling  be  refused? 


132       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

The  decline  of  bundling  is  to  be  attributed  largely  to 
the  increase  of  wealth  which  made  possible  larger 
houses  and  less  rigorous  conditions  of  life. 

Pre-contract  probably  tended  to  fornication.  New 
England  betrothal  was  a  solemnity  of  moment- a  half- 
way marriage.  Incontinence  of  betrothed  might  be 
punished  as  adultery  tho  if  the  ofifence  was  with  each 
other  the  penalty  was  diminished. 

The  matter  of  fornication  before  marriage  was  given 
shameful  notoriety.  Not  even  matrimony  long  pre- 
vious to  the  discovery  of  the  transgression  was  consid- 
ered complete  satisfaction.  Fear  of  infant  damnation 
was  a  stimulus  compelling  young  married  people  to 
shameful  public  confession.  Groton  church  records 
show  that  until  1803  whenever  a  child  was  born  less 
than  seven  months  after  marriage  a  public  confession 
had  to  be  made  before  the  whole  congregation.  Thus, 
at  Roxbury,  1678,  Hanna  Hopkins  was  censured  in  the 
church  for  fornication  with  her  husband  before  mar- 
riage and  for  fleeing  from  justice  into  Rhode  Island. 
The  Braintree  Records  for  March  2,  1683  show  that 

Temperance,  the  daughter  of  brother  F ,  now  the  wife  of 

John  B ,  having  been  guilty  of  the  sin  of  fornication  with 

him  that  is  now  her  husband,  was  called  forth  in  open  congre- 
gation, and  presented  a  paper  containing  a  full  acknowledge- 
ment of  her  great  sin  and  wickedness,  publickly  bewailed  her 
disobedience  to  parents.  .  .  She  was  solemnly  admonished 
of  her  great  sin. 

In  1728 

Joseph   P and  Lydia  his  wife  made  a  confession  before 

the  church  which  was  well  accepted,  for  the  sin  of  fornication 
committed  with  each  other  before  marriage. 

The  cases  of  premarital  fornication  by  husband  and 
wife  were  evidently  numerous.  The  experience  of 
Braintree  was  by  no  means  singular  among  the  Massa- 


Sex  Sin  and  Family  Failure  in  New  England  133 

chusetts  towns  of  the  eighteenth  century.  The  records 
of  the  Groton  church  show  that  of  two  hundred  persons 
owning  the  baptismal  covenant  there  from  1761  to  1775, 
no  less  than  sixty-six  confessed  to  fornication  before 
marriage.  From  1789  to  1791  sixteen  couples  were 
admitted  to  full  communion;  of  these  nine  had  con- 
fessed to  fornication.  The  greater  part  of  the  Brain- 
tree  confessions  of  incontinence  were  between  1726  and 
1744,  the  period  of  the  Great  Awakening.  Discipline 
probably  stiffened  about  1725.  Perhaps  confession  in- 
creased with  the  rise  of  religious  enthusiasm.  It  may 
be  that  sex  excitement  was  concomitant  with  the  reli- 
gious frenzy. 

Every  means  was  employed  to  check  the  evil  of  in- 
continence which  even  in  the  earliest  days  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts colonies  was  a  grievous  trouble.  In  Rhode  Is- 
land, according  to  Weeden,  "the  hardest  municipal 
task -beyond  early  theological  differences  or  proprie- 
tors' disputes  for  lands -was  in  the  control  of  sexual  im- 
morality."    In  that  colony, 

Illegitimacy  was  a  not  uncommon  offence  ...  at  any  « 
time  in  the  first  century  of  our  colonial  history.  .  .  A  young 
woman's  prospect  of  marrying  respectably  and  of  moving  there- 
after in  respectable  society,  do  not  seem  to  have  been  seriously 
impaired  by  her  already  having  shown  herself  qualified  to  dis- 
charge the  functions  of  a  wife  and  mother.^® 

As  regards  Rhode  Island  in  1655  the  Lord  Protector 
"hath  lately  received  complaints  against  us  that  we 
abound  with  whoredom"  and  steps  were  taken  to  check 
lasciviousness.  In  1642  Governor  Bradford  bewailed 
conditions  at  Plymouth,  "not  only  incontinence  between 
persons  unmarried,  for  which  many  both  men  and 
women  have  been  punished  sharply  ,^|iough  but  some 

58  Field.  State  of  R.  I.  and  Providence  Plantations  at  the  End  of  ihe  Cen- 
tury, vol.  iii,  397. 


/..,, 


134       ^^'"'  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

maried  persons  also."  A  reforming  synod  at  Boston, 
1679,  laments  "hainous  breeches  of  the  seventh  com- 
mandment." Numerous  cases  of  church  confession 
might  be  cited.  At  Dedham  for  twenty-five  years  be- 
fore 1 78 1  twenty-five  cases  of  unlawful  cohabitation 
were  publicly  acknowledged.  Between  1756  and  1803 
the  number  of  cases  increased  alarmingly.  Apparent- 
ly the  cases  of  church  discipline  publicly  administered 
on  the  ground  of  sexual  immorality  were  infrequent  in 
Roxbury  (as  in  Dedham  and  Braintree)  before  1725. 
Lord  Dartmouth,  secretary  for  the  colonies,  referred  to 
the  commonness  of  illegitimate  offspring  among  the 
young  people  of  New  England  as  a  thing  of  accepted 
notoriety  and  Governor  Hutchinson  did  not  refute  the 
charge. 

Hawthorne  says  in  The  Scarlet  Letter: 
Morally  as  well  as  materially  there  was  a  coarser  fibre  in  those 
wives  and  maidens  of  old  English  birth  and  breeding  than  in 
their  fair  descendants  separated  from  them  by  a  series  of  six  or 
seven  generations. 

Charles  Francis  Adams  wrote  regarding  New  Eng- 
land (1883): 

The  illegitimate  child  was  more  commonly  met  with  in  the  last 
than  in  the  present  century  and  bastardy  cases  furnished  a  class 
of  business  with  which  country  lawyers  seem  to  have  been  as 
familiar  as  they  are  with  liquor  cases  now.^^ 

In  these  North  Atlantic  colonies  even  sodomy  was  not 
uncommon  and  buggery  occurred  and  had  to  be  dealt 
with.«° 

These  manifestations  of  carnality  so  alien  to  the  tradi- 
tional picture  of  Puritanism  demand  explanation. 
Doubtless  the  bleak  barrenness  and  economic  dearth 

5^  Compare  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Proceedings,  second  ser.,  vol. 
vi,  477-516. 

^°  Elliott  Newj  England  History,  vol.  i,  392-393. 


Sex  Sin  and  Family  Failure  in  New  England  135 

j  that  oppressed  the  first  settlers  helped  to  reduce  life  to 
elemental  levels.  As  Lamb  put  it,  "Poor  men's  smoky 
cabins  are  not  always  porticoes  of  moral  philosophy." 
Moreover,  where  wealth  was  scant,  questions  of  legiti- 
macy and  inheritance  were  less  urgent.  Besides,  the 
settlers  had  brought  from  England  a  fund  of  coarse 
sensuality,  veneered  it  might  be  with  modish  asceticism, 
yet  certainly  demanding  to  be  heard.  The  form  of  sex 
indulgence  that  developed  may  have  been  due  in  part  to 
the  stern  morality  that  did  not  allow  for  a  class  of  rec- 
ognized prostitutes.  Brownist  influences  are  also  sug- 
gested. In  extenuation  of  the  incontinence  of  eight- 
eenth century  New  England  it  should  be  remembered 
that  much  of  it  was  not  promiscuous  and  it  is  hard  to 
accept  Adams's  opinion  that  "in  the  matter  of  sexual 
morality,  vice  in  the  nineteenth  century  as  compared 
with  the  seventeenth  or  the  eighteenth  has  lost  some 
part  of  its  evil  in  losing  much  of  its  grossness."  For 
whatever  surface  improvement  there  has  been  is  prob- 
ably due  largely  to  the  development  of  organized  pros- 
titution and  the  practice  of  prevjention  and  criminal 
abortion  at  which  present  day  society  is  adept. 

It  c;an  not  be  doubted  that  the  publicity  accorded 
to  cases  of  sex  errancy  was  an  unwholesome  influence 
that  tended  to  augment  the  evil  by  creating  a  kind  of 

'*  social  hysteria.  Such  sensationalism  was  of  the  nature 
of  suggestion.  Living  under  terrible  repression -en- 
vironmental and  social -the  New  Englanders  found 
morbid  satisfaction  in  conscience-prying  and  soul-dis- 
play. The  detailed  descriptions  of  their  offences  that 
adulterers  gave  in  church  outwent  the  wildest  flights 
of  modern  sensationalism  as  an  enrichment  of  the  ser- 
vice and  doubtless  brought  and  held  a  large  audience. 
The  various  civil  penalties  irnpTosed  can  not  have  been 


136       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

much  more  wholesome.  Dunton  tells  us  that  there 
hardly  passed  a  court  day  in  Massachusetts  without 
some  convictions  for  fornication  and  tho  the  penalty 
was  fine  and  whipping,  the  crime  was  very  frequent.  At 
Plymouth  in  several  cases  of  premature  birth  the  hus- 
band was  publicly  whipped  while  his  wife  sat  in  the 
stocks  as  witness.  In  their  zeal  for  the  sanctity  of  mar- 
ried life  several  codes  prescribed  capital  punishment 
for  adultery.  Plymouth  substituted  whipping  and  the 
scarlet  letter.  In  Rhode  Island  the  penalty  was  whip- 
ping with  payment  of  costs.  It  is  obvious  that  the  pun- 
ishment of  such  offences  involved  an  unwholesome  pub- 
licity. Moreover,  with  the  prevalence  of  extreme  pen- 
alties there  went  reluctance  to  urge  conviction  for  adul- 
tery. 

In  marked  contrast  to  the  abnormal  stimulation  of  the 
sex  function  by  morbid  publicity  was  the  attempt  to 
suppress  like  stimulation  in  the  way  of  social  amuse- 
ment. In  New  England,  as  in  the  home  country,  the 
Puritans  attacked  the  Maypole.  Specific  happenings 
suggest  reason  for  rigor.  A  Plymouth  court  record 
shows  that  one  Mary  Rosse  exercised  an  "intfiewsiastic- 
al  power"  over  a  certain  married  man  who  pleaded 
that  "he  must  doo  what  shee  bade  him."  The  charmer 
was  publicly  whipped  and  sent  home  to  her  mother. 
The  victim  was  also  whipped.  In  New  Hampshire 
Margery  Riggs  for  luring  George  Palmer  was  ordered 
severely  whipped  while  her  avowedly  helpless  victim 
was  only  pilloried.  In  New  Haven  Mrs.  Fancies 
seemed  able  to  captivate  nearly  every  man  with  whom 
she  chanced  in  contact.  She  was  a  sore  perplexity  to 
the  magistrates.  It  were  hard  to  tell  how  far  undue 
censorship  of  sex  relations  plus  pathological  publicity 
were  responsible  for  the  epidemic  of  sickly  sentimen- 


Sex  Sin  and  Family  Failure  in  New  England  137 

tality  that  for  many  years  seemed  to  prevail  throughout 
America  with  excessive  talk  on  love,  matrimony,  and 
"Platonicks"  even  between  comparative  strangers." 

Moreover,  the  remedies  tried  for  sex  sin  proved  rela- 
tively unavailing.  Church  discipline  was  not  always 
efficacious  even  in  respect  to  the  person  in  question. 

On  one  occasion  a  committee  reported  that  E.  M 

owned  to  them  that  she  had  had  two  bastard  children 
since  she  confessed  fornication.  After  promising  to 
make  satisfaction  to  the  church  she  failed  to  come  and 
was  sentenced  to  suspension  and  admonition. 

A  more  successful  case  of  discipline  was  that  of  Cap- 
tain Underbill.     As  early  as  1638  he  was  suspected  of 
incontinency  with  a  neighbor's  wife.     "The  woman 
being  young  and  beautiful  and  withal  of  a  jovial  spirit 
and  behavior,  he  did  daily  frequent  her  house,  and  was 
divers  times  found  there  alone  with  her,  the  door  being 
locked  on  the  inside."     He  said  she  was  in  trouble  and 
temptation  and  they  were  praying  together.     He  was 
accused  "by  a  godly  young  woman  to  have  solicited 
her  chastity  under  pretence  of  Christian  love   [this 
smacks  of  Brownism],  and  to  have  confessed  to  her, 
that  he  had  his  will  oftentimes  of  the  cooper's  wife,  and 
all  out  of  strength  of  love."     In  1640,  Underbill 
Confessed  also  in  the  congregation,  that  tho  he  was  very  fa- 
miliar with  that  woman,  and  had  gained  her  affections,  etc., 
yet  she  withstood  him  six  months  against  all  his  sollicitations 
(which  he  thought  no  woman  could  have  resisted)   before  he 
could  overcome  her  chastity,  but  being  once  overcome,  she  was 
wholly  at  his  will.     And  to  make  his  peace  the  more  sound,  he 
went  to  her  husband     .     .     .     and  fell  upon  his  knees  before 
him  in  presence  of  some  of  the  elders  and  others,  and  confessed    • 
the  wrong  he  had  done  him,  and  besought  him  to  forgive  him, 
which  he  did  very  freely,  and  in  testimony  thereof  he  sent  the 
captain's  wife  a  token. 

^^  Earle.     Colonial  Dames  and  Goodtvi'ves,  190-191. 


138       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

Discretion  was  not  always  mixed  with  the  sentences. 
Witness  the  case  of  Polly  Baker  of  Connecticut  who 
w^as  seduced  and  deserted  and  when  her  child  was  born 
was  punished,  various  times  whipped,  fined,  and  im- 
prisoned.    Once  she  spoke  to  the  court: 

I  cannot  conceive  my  offence  to  be  of  so  unpardonable  a  nature 
as  the  law  considers  it.  ,.  .  I  readily  consented  to  the  only 
offer  of  marriage  that  ever  was  made  me.  I  have  deluded  no 
young  man,  nor  seduced  aw^ay  any  woman's  husband. 
You  have  already  excluded  me  from  the  communion !  You 
believe  I  have  offended  heaven  and  shall  suffer  everlastingly! 
Why  then  will  you  increase  my  misery  by  additional  fines  and 
whippings?  Compel  [the  bachelors]  either  to  marry,  or  to  pay 
double  fines.  What  must  poor  young  women  do?  Custom 
forbids  their  making  overtures  to  men;  they  cannot,  however 
heartily  they  wish  it,  marry  when  they  please. 

The  court  discharged  her  without  punishment  for  that 
time,  the  lawyers  made  her  presents,  and  her  seducer 
afterwards  married  her. 

•  Women  were  more  sternly  dealt  with  than  men.  In 
1707  a  woman  was  sentenced  at  Plymouth  to  be  set  on 
the  gallows,  receive  thirty  stripes  upon  her  naked  back, 
and  forever  after  to  wear  the  capital  A.  The  man  was 
acquitted  with  no  assignment  of  reason. ^^  We  are  re- 
minded that  the  man  of  the  Reformation  knew  no  chiv- 
alry when  we  read  of  a  woman  condemned  to  stand  in 
the  market  place  in  Boston  and  to  wear  a  placard: 
"Thus  I  stand  for  my  adulterous  and  whorish  car- 
riage." 

It  seems  from  some  cases  that  the  offence  of  unchas- 
tity  was,  after  all,  a  formal  one  that  the  civil  power 
might  overlook,  provided  no  burden  of  supporting  il- 
legitimate children  was  imposed  on  the  community."' 

^2  Howard.  History  of  Matrimonial  Institutiorts,  vol.  ii,  175.  Compare 
Gage,  Woman,  Church,  and  State,  282. 

63  Early  Records  of  the  Toivn  of  Providence,  vol.  iv,  41 ;  Field.  State  of 


Sex  Sin  and  Family  Failure  in  New  England  139 

The  weight  of  economic  considerations  is  evident  in  the 
law  that  "the  father  of  a  bastard,  convict,  shall  main- 
tain it,  or  allow  the  mother  what  the  court  thinks  fit." 
The  mere  oath  of  the  woman  makes  him  liable  to  this 
charge  tho  not  to  punishment  imposed  by  law  for  forni- 
cation and  adultery.  If  circumstances  throw  doubt 
the  court  may  acquit  him.  Forced  marriage  was  one 
of  the  penalties  of  fornication.  In  Rhode  Island  wo- 
men with  children  were  ordered  off,  very  likely  for  the 
reason  that  the  community  feared  expense,  for  a  woman 
guilty  of  bastardy  was  dismissed  on  showing  her  ability 
to  keep  her  child. 

In  Connecticut  Chastellux  noticed  what  seems  to  be 
a  cognate  phenomenon.  In  one  pleasing  family  a 
daughter  was  confined  to  her  room  having  been  se- 
duced and  betrayed.  She  was  kindly  treated  and  the 
family  seemed  to  have  no  hesitation  in  telling  her  story 
to  travellers.  It  might  be  judged,  as  the  English  trans- 
lator who  had  travelled  in  America  said,  that  "it  was 
the  custom  of  the  country  to  regard  such  accidents  not 
as  irretrievable  ruin,  but  as  misfortunes  which  could 
be  remedied."  The  translator  further  said  that  such 
young  women  lost  no  social  rights;  "their  mistake  was 
lamented  rather  than  condemned;  and  they  could  after- 
wards marry  and  take  as  good  a  position  as  ever,  al- 
though their  story  was  neither  unknown  nor  attempted 
to  be  concealed."  In  the  case  mentioned  the  lover  re- 
turned and  all  was  well. 

Later  the  Frenchman  found  a  similar  case  in  Con- 
necticut. Again  he  was  impressed  with  the  complete 
innocence  and  frankness  of  all  concerned  and  their 
willingness  to  support  and  take  care  of  a  young  woman 

Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations  at  the  End  of  the  Century,  vol. 
">,  395- 


140       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

that  had  so  gone  astray.  He  suggests  a  possible  explan- 
ation of  the  situation,  viz.  that  citizens  are  so  precious 
in  a  new  country  that  a  girl,  by  rearing  her  child,  seems 
to  atone  for  the  initial  sin.  He  found  such  slips  among 
very  young  people  quite  common  but  the  repetition  of 
them  exceedingly  rare. 

Financial  means  evidently  served  to  render  unchas- 
tity  less  heinous.  Stories  of  scandal  in  high  society  can 
be  found  in  the  histories  of  all  old  Nev^  England  towns. 

Thus  the  w^idow  B ,  presented  for  a  second  offence 

in  having  a  child  born  out  of  wedlock,  the  father  of 
both  being  a  married  man,  was  sentenced  to  pay  the 
usual  fine  of  five  pounds  and  also  to  w^ear  on  her  cap  a 
paper  on  which  her  offence  was  written,  as  a  warning 
to  others,  or  else  pay  fifteen  pounds.  The  man  in  the 
case,  a  Harvard  alumnus,  a  man  of  wealth,  found  an- 
other man  of  wealth  to  go  on  her  bond  and  later  mar- 
ried the  widow.  The  descendants  of  the  bastards  are 
now  a  prominent  family.®* 

Sir  Christopher  Gardiner  seems  to  have  been  a 
source  of  much  trouble  through  his  relations  with  wo- 
men. Then  there  was  the  notorious  case  of  Sir  Harry 
Frankland  which  showed  that  even  social  prestige  can 
not  wipe  out  all  standards.  In  1741  he  was  made  col- 
lector of  the  port  of  Boston.  (He  had  with  him  an  il- 
legitimate son.)  After  educating  and  patronizing  a 
handsome  scrub  girl  he  took  her  as  his  concubine  in 
spite  of  her  religious  instructor,  the  president  of  Har- 
vard. The  resultant  outburst  in  Boston  society  drove 
them  to  move  to  another  town.  Later  on  he  w^as  caught 
in  the  Lisbon  earthquake  and  vow^ed  to  marry  her. 
After  doing  so  he  returned  with  her  to  Boston. 

A  common  offence  was  for  an  immigrant  that  had 

^*  Giddings.  Natural  History  of  American  Morals,  34, 


Sex  Sin  and  Family  Failure  in  New  England  141 

left  a  spouse  in  England  to  attempt  a  new  alliance  in 
the  colonies.  A  letter  dated  Bristol,  last  of  August, 
1632  tells  of  a  man  with  two  wives  who  had  gone  off  to 
New  England  with  a  harlot  and  lived  there.  Later, 
fearing  trouble  when  news  of  his  doings  reached  Amer- 
ica he  tried  to  escape  to  the  Dutch  but  was  apprehend- 
ed and  brought  back.  Later  a  man  married  "this 
Gardner's  wench."  Massachusetts  in  1647  passed  a 
law  as  follows: 

Whereas  divers  persons  both  men  and  women,  living  within 
this  jurisdiction,  whose  wives  and  husbands  are  in  England, 
or  elsewhere,  by  means  whereof  they  live  under  great  tempta- 
tion here,  and  some  of  them  committing  lewdness  and  filthiness 
here  among  us,  others  make  love  to  women  and  attempt  mar- 
riage and  some  have  attained  it,  some  of  them  live  under  sus- 
picion of  uncleanness  and  all  to  the  great  dishonor  of  God.  .  . 
All  such  married  persons  .  .  .  shall  repaire  to  their  said 
relatives  by  the  first  opportunity  of  shipping,  upon  paine  or 
penalty  of  £20,  except  they  can  show  just  cause  to  the  con- 
trary to  the  [court]  .  .  .  provided  this  order  doe  not  ex- 
tend to  such  as  are  come  over  to  make  way  for  their  families,  or 
are  [transient]. 

New  Haven  ordered  spouses  to  repair  to  their  partners 
in  England  or  elsewhere  with  similar  exception.  Win- 
throp  tells  of  \Villiam  Schooler,  an  adulterer,  who  had 
left  his  wife  "a  handsome,  neat  woman"  in  England. 
Strictness  of  marriage  law  seems  to  have  been  aimed 
partly  at  such  cases.  Thus  the  Earl  of  Bellomont 
writes  (1700)  : 

The  truth  is,  as  I  have  been  informed,  some  loose  people  have 
sometimes  come  from  England  and  married  in  New  England, 
tho  they  had  left  wives  behind  them  in  England,  and  this  law 
was  calculated  chiefly  for  prevention  of  such  marriages.  If  a 
minister  of  the  church  of  England  will  be  at  the  pains  of 
going  to  any  town  or  place  to  marry  people,  nobody  will  hinder 
him. 


142       The  American  Family  -Colonial  Period 

The  disposition  to  illicit  cohabitation,  which  was 
treated  in  a  former  chapter,  is  further  illustrated  in 
the  case  of  Richard  Bates  who  appeared,  April  25, 
1683,  having  "a  woman  abiding  with  you."  Both 
were  ordered  off  July  25.  He  with  the  woman 
was  cited  for  contempt  and  obtained  an  extension 
till  October  21.  In  December  the  time  was  extend- 
ed to  March  31.  Thomas  Cooper  attempted  mar- 
riage but  was  forbidden  because  he  had  "manifested 
himself  a  person  infamous  in  that  he  hath  forsaken  a 
sober  woman  who  is  his  wife."  His  intended  appears 
again  "entertained  by  Thos.  Cooper."  Her  time  of  re- 
moval was  set;  "not  to  live  with  Thomas  Cooper  mean- 
while." 

In  at  least  one  instance  the  General  Court  tried  to 
compel  husband  and  wife  to  stick  together.  The  rev- 
erend S.  Batchelder  of  Lynn,  at  nearly  ninety  years  of 
age  married  a  third  wife.  Trouble  ensued.  In  1650 
the  general  court  ordered  that 

Mr.  Batchelor  and  his  wife  shall  lyve  together  as  man  and  wife, 
as  in  this  court  they  have  publiquely  professed  to  do,  and  if 
either  desert  one  another,  then  hereby  the  court  doth  order  that 
ye  marshal  shall  apprehend  both  and  bring  them  forthwith  to 
Boston,  here  to  be  kept  till  the  next  quarter  court. 

But  he  got  away,  went  to  England,  and  remarried. 

Family  peace  and  safet}^  were  of  conspicuous  social 
interest.  A  father  might  be  called  to  account  by  church 
or  magistrate.  Thus  a  man  is  fined  for  beating  his 
daughter  with  a  flail  and  John  Veasey  is  put  under 
recognizance  in  the  sum  of  five  pounds  "for  detaining 
his  child  from  the  public  worship  of  God,  said  child 
being  about  eleven  years  old."  A  number  of  cases  of 
court  procedure  are  on  record  against  men  that  abused 
their  wives.  One  man  was  fined  for  slandering  his 
wife. 


Sex  Sin  and  Family  Failure  in  New  England  143 

In  October,  1691  Ephraim  Pierce  of  Rhode  Island 
repeated  a  warning  to  all  not  to  have  dealings  with  or  to 
entertain  his  wife.  At  town  meeting  a  complaint  had 
been  entered  "made  by  Hannah  Pierce  unto  the  town 
that  her  husband  hath  locked  her  out  of  doors  and  hath 
sold  his  farm  shee  desireing  the  town's  assistant."  It 
was  decided  to  order  Ephraim  to  appear  at  next  quar- 
ter day  and  answer.     The  record  runs: 

Whereas  there  hath  been  and  still  is  a  difference  fallen  out 
betweene  Ephram  Pierce  and  his  wife  whereby  themselves, 
family  and  estate  is  like  to  fall  to  ruin  and  thereby  the  towne 
is  like  to  have  charge  fall  upon  them  .  .  .  therefore  [Eph- 
raim contracts  with  the  town  not  to  sell  or  mortgage  within  a 
specified  time  house  or  land  without  consent  of  certain  men, 
previous  acts  as  to  mortgaging  to  be  null.]  ^^ 

It  is  evident  from  this  as  from  previous  evidence  that 
social  control  of  family  relations  was  in  part  due  to  a 
desire  to  avoid  possible  burdens  on  the  community. 

The  importance  attached  to  public  opinion  as  a  fam- 
ily censor  is  apparent  in  various  advertisements  of  de- 
linquent spouses  published  in  colonial  papers."''  Some 
of  them  were  introduced  by  the  awesome  admonition: 
"Cursed  be  he  that  parteth  man  and  wife  and  all  the 
people  shall  say  Amen."  It  was  alleged  of  some  Con- 
necticut wives  that  they  were  rude,  gay,  frivolous,  lazy 
housewives,  poor  cooks,  fond  of  dancing  and  worthless 
conversation,  unloving  consorts. 

These  libels  were  not  all  prosaic  or  masculine.  Some 
were  in  rhyme,  and  wives  presented  their  grievances. 
One,  owing  to  the  niggardliness  of  her  husband  had  to 
use  "Indian  branne  for  Jonne  bred,"  and  never  tasted 
good  food.  Another  complained  that  her  husband 
"cruelly  pulled  my  hair,  pinched  my  flesh,  kicked  me 

'''•'Early  Records  of  the  Totjun  of  Providence,  vol.  xvii,   139-140. 

88  Compare  Earle,  Customs  and  Fashions  in  Old  New  England,  66-68. 


144       -^^'''  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

out  of  bed,  dragM  me  by  my  arms  and  heels,  flung  ashes 
upon  me  to  smother  me,  flung  water  from  the  well  till 
I  had  not  a  dry  thread  on  me." 

But  women  were  not  altogether  dependent  on  law  or 
public  opinion  for  protection.  It  was  even  thought 
necessary  to  legislate  for  the  protection  of  husbands. 
Thus  one  law  provided  that  no  wife  dared  lift  her  hand 
or  use  "a  curst  and  shrewish  tongue"  to  her  husband 
under  pain  of  stocks  or  pillory.  Cotton  Mather,  who 
in  March,  1716  wrote  in  his  diary: 

Very  much  inculcate  in  the  children  the  lessons  of  thankful- 
ness to  the  glorious  God,  for  having  provided  so  marvellously 
for  them,  when  he  had  made  them  orphans,  and  now  bestowing 
an  excellent  mother  upon  them  [was  compelled  to  add  as  a  se- 
quel about  three  years  later:]  The  dreadful  distresses  which  a 
furious  and  froward  step-mother  brings  upon  my  family,  as 
they  oblige  me  to  lay  upon  the  children  the  most  solemn  charges 
of  all  possible  dutifulness  unto  her,  so,  they  furnish  me  with  op- 
portunities, mightily  to  press  all  piety  upon  them.  .  .  Oh ! 
my  poor,  distressed  family. 

In  Maine  and  New  Hampshire  women  sometimes 
smote  their  husbands.  In  Plymouth  colony  Joan  Mil- 
ler was  presented  for  "beating  and  reviling  her  husband 
and  egging  her  children  to  healp  her,  bidding  them 
knock  him  on  the  head,  and  wishing  his  victual  might 
choake  him."  One  shrew  for  "vncivill  carriages  to  her 
husband"  was  pilloried.  Dorothy  Talbye  of  Salem 
was  ordered  chained  to  a  post.  Later  she  was  whipped, 
and  then  hanged  for  killing  her  child.  (Evidently  she 
was  insane.)     In  1683  Daniel  Abbot  wrote  of  his  wife: 

Through  her  maddness  of  folly  and  turbulency  of  her  corrupt 
will  destroying  me  root  and  branch  putting  out  one  of  her  own 
eyes  to  put  out  both  mine.  And  is  since  departed  takeing  away 
my  children  without  my  consent  and  plots  to  rifle  my  house  to 
accomplish  her  divellish  resolution  against  me. 

He  forbade  bargaining  and  contracting  with  her. 


Sex  Sin  and  Family  Failure  in  New  England  145 

It  is,  of  course,  impossible  to  tell  what  proportion  the 
untoward  phenomena  bear  to  the  instances  of  serene 
domestic  life.  But  making  allowance  for  the  proba- 
bility that  sensational  incidents,  as  at  present,  received 
more  attention  than  quiet  family  purity,  it  seems  prob- 
able that  sexual  morality  was  not  appreciably  higher  in 
Puritan  times  than  to-day.  As  for  domestic  bliss  our 
day  can  no  doubt  hold  its  own  in  comparison  with  the 
colonial  centuries. 

The  harshness  of  the  lines  in  the  colonial  family  was 
as  much  due  to  social  pressure  as  to  individual  perver- 
sity. Thus  domestic  enjoyments  were  supposed  to  be 
omitted  on  the  Sabbath.  Some  ministers  refused  to 
baptize  children  born  on  the  Sabbath,  because  of  a 
theory  that  such  infants  were  conceived  on  Sabbath. 
One  of  the  ministers  most  strenuous  in  this  line  kept  up 
his  rigor  till  on  a  Sabbath  his  wife  gave  birth  to  twins. 

As  compared  with  Europe  the  colonial  New  Eng- 
landers  were  probably  relatively  free  from  sex  sin. 
Chastellux  was  impressed  with  American  freedom  from 
infidelities  among  married  people  and  the  Abbe  Robin, 
who  was  in  Connecticut  in  1781,  says: 

There  is  such  a  confidence  in  the  public  virtue  that,  from  Bos- 
ton to  Providence,  I  have  often  met  young  vv^omen  travelling 
alone  on  horseback,  or  in  small  riding  chaises,  through  the 
woods,  even  when  the  day  was  far  upon  the  decline. 

The  French  at  Newport  undertook  intrigues  with  mar- 
ried women  (during  the  Revolution).  The  Abbe  tells 
of  one  husband  equal  to  the  occasion. 

He  became  more  assiduous  and  complaisant  to  her  than  ever; 
with  sorrow  and  despair  in  his  soul,  he  showed  a  countenance 
serene  and  satisfied.  He  received  at  his  house  with  attention 
and  civility  the  very  officer  who  was  the  author  of  his  misfor- 
tune; but  by  a  friend's  aid,  so  contrived  matters  as  to  hinder  him 
from  private  meetings  with  her.     The  repeated  disappointments 


146       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

seemed  to  the  Frenchman  mere  chance  mishaps.  But  he  grew 
sullen  and  peevish  under  the  strain,  and  thus  became  less  at- 
tractive to  the  lady,  while  her  husband  became  more  amiable  in 
her  eyes  than  ever.  Thus  her  lingering  virtue  recalled  her  to 
her  allegiance.  Such  a  procedure  in  so  delicate  an  affair  exhibits 
great  knowledge  of  human  nature,  and  still  greater  self-control. 

New  England  took  the  lead  in  a  liberal  civil  divorce 
policy."  The  Puritans  brought  English  law  with  them 
but  parted  from  it  in  respect  to  divorce  by  adopting,  as 
they  thought,  the  rules  of  the  New  Testament.  By  fol- 
lowing what  they  construed  to  be  the  spirit  of  the  book, 
rather  than  the  letter,  they  spread  out  from  adultery 
and  desertion  as  the  only  causes  of  divorce  and  by  an- 
alogy included  certain  kindred  offences  until  their  leg- 
islation became  broadly  tolerant.  The  canonical  de- 
cree of  separation  from  bed  and  board  was  practically 
tho  not  entirely,  dispensed  with.  On  the  other  hand 
dissolution  of  the  marriage  bond  was  freely  granted 
for  a  variety  of  causes,  such  as  desertion,  cruelty,  or 
breach  of  the  vow.  Generally,  tho  not  always,  husband 
and  wife  received  equal  treatment  at  the  hands  of  the 
law.  The  disposition  of  some  to  ignore  legal  process 
and  part  at  will  was  not  favored.  Thus  Rhode  Island 
had  a  law  that  "if  any  persons  in  this  colonic  shall  part 
themselves  and  marry  again  without  the  authority  of 
the  Court  of  Commissioners,  or  be  convicted  of  carnal 
copulation  with  any  other,  they  shall  be  punished  as  in 
case  of  adultery." 

In  Massachusetts,  1639,  James  Luxford,  being  pre- 
sented for  having  two  wives,  his  last  marriage  was  de- 
clared void 

Or  a  nullity  thereof  and  to  be  divorced,  not  to  come  to  the  sight 
of  her  whom  he  last  took,  and  he  to  be  sent  away  for  England 

^^  Compare  Woolsey,  "Divorce,"  in  Ne^  Englander,  vol.  xxvii,  519;  How- 
ard, History  of  Matrimonial  Institutions,  vol.  ii,  330. 


Sex  Sin  and  Family  Failure  in  New  England  147 

by  the  first  opportunity:  and  all  that  he  hath  is  appointed  to  her 
whom  he  last  married,  for  her  and  her  children ;  he  is  also  fined 
£100  and  to  be  set  in  the  stocks  an  hour  upon  the  market  day 
after  the  lecture. 

He  was  probably  one  of  the  recreant  husbands  that  left 
their  legal  wives  in  England. 

In  1 66 1  in  Plymouth  Elizabeth  Burge  was  divorced 
from  Thomas  on  scriptural  grounds.  He  was  severely 
whipped  twice  and  soon  left  the  colony. 

In  1665  in  Rhode  Island  Peter  Tollman  applied  for  a 
divorce  from  his  wife  on  the  ground  of  adultery.  She 
confessed.  The  petition  was  at  once  granted  and  she 
was  arraigned  for  sentence.  The  penalty  was  a  fine  and 
whipping.  She  was  condemned  to  pay  ten  pounds  and 
to  receive  fifteen  stripes  at  Portsmouth  on  the  following 
Monday  and  the  next  week  fifteen  more  at  Newport. 
On  her  petition  for  mercy  the  court,  strangely  enough, 
examined  her  as  to  whether  she  would  return  to  her 
husband.  She  refused  and  was  accordingly  remanded 
for  punishment. 

At  Plymouth,  1668,  Goodwife  Tubbs  had  eloped 
from  the  colony.  The  court  gave  her  husband  a  di- 
vorce. On  one  occasion  a  certain  W.  Tubbs  sought  a 
divorce  and,  after  patriarchal  style,  W.  Peabody  gave 
him  a  writing  of  divorcement  with  two  witnesses.  The 
General  Court  treated  the  document  as  a  nullity  and 
fined  Peabody  five  pounds  and  each  witness  three 
pounds.  In  1670  in  Connecticut  Hannah  Huitt  "hav- 
ing declared  that  she  had  not  heard  from  her  late  hus- 
band, Thomas  Huitt,  for  eight  years  and  better,  was 
declared  to  be  at  liberty  to  marry  again  as  God  shall 
grant  her  opportunity."  In  Plymouth  colony,  1675,  a 
peculiar  decision  was  rendered.  Edward  Jenkins  had 
petitioned  for  a  divorce  for  his  daughter  because  her 


148       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

husband  had  been  out  of  the  colony  and  made  no  pro- 
vision for  her  during  seven  years  or  more.  The  de- 
cision was :  The  court  "sees  no  cause  to  grant  a  divorce, 
yet  they  do  apprehend  her  to  be  no  longer  bound,  but 
do  leave  her  to  her  liberty  to  marry  if  she  please." 

In  one  of  the  colonies  in  1676,  Elizabeth  Rogers  ob- 
tained a  divorce  from  John.  She  was  also  "permetted 
to  have  her  two  children  with  her,  because  the  said 
John  R.  had  renounced  all  visible  worship  of  New 
England,  and  declared  against  the  Christian  Sabbath." 
Some  property  that  he  owned  was  appropriated  to  the 
benefit  of  his  children.  In  1678  Hope  Ambrose  ob- 
tained a  divorce  from  Daniel  Ambrose  for  desertion, 
non-support  of  herself  and  children,  and  keeping  a 
woman  in  Jamaica.  Ambrose's  mistresses  appear  in 
the  record  in  unminced  terms.  When  James  Shift's 
wife  went  off  with  another  man,  tho  the  deserted  hus- 
band was  not  in  Plymouth  jurisdiction,  the  general 
court  of  that  colony  certified  to  his  having  a  divorce 
from  his  own  court.  In  1683  John  Warner,  a  deputy 
from  Warwick,  was  divorced  on  petition  of  his  wife  for 
adultery  and  criminal  violence  to  her  and  expelled 
from  the  Rhode  Island  Assembly. 

When  Sara  Knight  made  her  journey  between  Boston 
and  New  York  in  1704  she  found  divorces  plentiful  in 
Connecticut.     She  writes: 

These  uncomely  standaways  are  too  much  in  vogue  among  the 
English  in  this  indulgent  colony  as  their  records  plentifully 
prove,  and  that  on  very  trivial  matters  of  which  some  have  been 
told  me  but  are  not  proper  to  be  related  by  a  female  pen. 

Various  conditions  contributed  to  liberal  divorce  in 
the  colonies:  rejection  of  the  sacramental  theory  of 
marriage,  the  establishment  of  marriage  as  a  civil  rite, 
assimilated  to  a  business  contract,  the  numerous  cases 


Sex  Sin  and  Family  Failure  in  New  England  149 

of  men  that  had  left  their  wives  in  the  old  country,  the 
great  difficulty  of  leading  the  new  life  without  wives 
and  husbands,  probably  the  feeling  that  population 
ought  to  be  increased  and  family  life  promoted. 

But  not  all  applications  for  divorce  were  granted. 
The  civil  power  aimed  also  to  forestall  the  necessity 
for  divorce.  Thus  in  Plymouth  colony  on  one  occa- 
sion the  court  warned  Edward  Holman  not  to  frequent 
the  house  of  Thomas  Shrieve  and  that  Goodwife 
Shrieve  should  not  frequent  the  house  or  company  of 
Holman  at  their  peril.  This  warning  proved  ineffec- 
tual and  the  next  year  they  were  ordered  to  avoid  each 
other  or  be  whipped.  This  threat  seems  to  have  suf- 
ficed. John  Robinson,  grandson  of  the  Leyden  pastor, 
was  bound  over  once  to  carry  himself  properly  toward 
Thomas  Crippen's  wife. 

Sexual  irregularity  occasioned  by  slavery  was  suf- 
ficiently noteworthy.  A  Massachusetts  law  of  1705 
condemns  negroes  and  mulattoes  guilty  of  improper  in- 
tercourse with  whites  to  be  sold  out  of  the  province. 
The  presence  of  the  Indian  race  was  also  a  temptation. 
Morton,  in  his  "New  England  Canaan"  tells  of  an  In- 
dian infant  with  gray  "eies"  whose 

Father  shewed  him  to  us  and  said  they  were  English  mens  eies, 
I  tould  the  father  that  his  sonne  was  .  .  .  bastard,  hee  re- 
plied .  .  .  hee  could  not  tell;  his  wife  might  play  the 
whore  and  this  child  the  father  desired  might  have  an  English 
name,  because  of  the  likeness  of  his  eies  which  his  father  had  in 
admiration,  because  of  novelty  amongst  their  nation. 

The  servant  problem  had  already  begun  to  be  a 
source  of  family  troubles.  All  the  early  travelers  note 
the  lack  of  good  servants.  Some  resorted  to  Indians. 
The  reverend  Peter  Thatcher  of  Milton,  Massachusetts 
bought  an  Indian  girl  in  1674.     One  duty  was  to  care 


150       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

for  the  baby.  "Came  home,"  he  writes,  "and  found 
my  Indian  girl  had  liked  to  have  knocked  my  Theo- 
dorah  on  the  head  by  letting  her  fall.  Whereupon  I 
took  a  good  walnut  stick  and  beat  the  Indian  to  purpose 
till  she  promised  to  do  so  no  more."  We  find  sad  ac- 
counts of  the  desertion  of  aged  colonists  by  their  Indian 
servants.  One  tells  that  he  took  his  "Pecod  girle"  as 
a  "chilld  of  death"  when  but  two  years  of  age,  reared 
her  kindly,  cared  for  her  when  she  was  sick,  and  finally 
was  deserted  by  her  in  his  time  of  need.  Sewall  had  a 
free  negro  man -a  devoted,  faithful  servant.  By  1687 
a  French  refugee  wrote:  "There  is  not  a  house  in  Bos- 
ton however  small  may  be  its  means,  that  has  not  one  or 
two"  negroes. 

Some  "help"  was  early  hireable.  Children  of  well- 
to-do  citizens  worked  in  domestic  service.*'*  Roger 
Williams  writes  of  his  daughter's  desiring  to  spend 
some  time  in  service.  Members  of  the  rich  Sewall's 
family  lived  out.  Sons  of  Downing  and  Hooke  went 
with  their  relative,  Governor  Winthrop,  as  servants. 
Children  were  bound  out  at  eight,  so  that  people  could 
rear  their  own  servants.  The  pious  colonists  felt  great 
responsibility  for  their  servants'  souls. 

But  the  problem  was  vexatious  in  spite  of  native, 
negro,  and  apprentice  service.  Downing  wrote  home 
to  England  to  try  to  get  good  servant  girls.  Mary 
Dudley,  daughter  of  Winthrop,  writes  of  a  very  re- 
fractory bad  maid.  Reverend  Ezekiel  Rogers  wrote 
in  1657,  when  extreme  Puritanism  was  fading: 

Hard  to  get  a  servant  that  is  glad  of  catechizing  or  family 
duties.  I  had  a  rare  blessing  of  servants  in  Yorkshire,  and 
those  that  I  brought  over  were  a  blessing,  but  the  young  brood 
doth  much  afflict  me.  Even  the  children  of  the  godly  here, 
and  elsewhere  make  a  woful  proof. 

^^Earle.     Customs  and  Fashions  in  Old  Neiu  England,  86-87. 


Sex  Sin  and  Family  Failure  in  New  England  151 
In  Hartford 

Susan  Coles  for  her  rebellious  cariedge  towards  her  mistres  is 
to  be  sent  to  the  house  of  correction,  and  be  kept  to  hard  labour 
and  coarse  dyet,  to  be  brought  forth  the  next  lecture  day  to  be 
publicquely  corrected  and  so  to  be  corrected  weekly  until  order 
be  given  to  the  contrary. 

There  are  many  like  records.     The  head  agent  of  a 
London  company  at  a  settlement  in  Maine  defended  his 
wife  to  the  powers  at  home  for  beating  a  worthless,  idle 
maid.     Thus  it  is  evident  that,  as  now,  the  servant  p rob-     /f    ,        ^- 
lem  was  an  apple  of  discord  in  family  life,  as  indeed  it  *■   ".  )i^  h 
will  continue  to  be  so  long  as  a  part  of  the  population      /^        ^^ 
demands  personal,  menial  attention  from  others  in  the       V-^  v^)*^ 
capacity  of  house  servants.  ^ 


n 


VIIL     SEX  AND  MARRIAGE  IN  COLONIAL 

NEW  YORK 

The  middle  colonies  were  startlingly  heterogeneous 
in  population.  Owing  to  diversity  in  respect  to  nation- 
ality and  religion  each  colony  possessed  an  individual- 
ity that  makes  it  inadvisable  to  study  them  as  a  unit. 
Only  a  few  large  generalities  are  in  order. 

Slighter  attention  was  given  there  than  in  New  Eng- 
land to  the  regulation  of  domestic  life.  Greater  ampli- 
tude and  fertility  of  soil  and  geniality  of  climate  tended 
to  soften  the  rigor  of  life  and  to  make  family  life  more 
kindly.  Diversity  of  population  and  multiplicity  of 
minor  sects  tended  to  clannishness  but  forced  broad 
tolerance  inasmuch  as  it  was  hard  for  any  one  group  to 
gain  unrestrained  expression  in  the  form  of  law.  In- 
troduction of  continental  blood  and  customs  worked 
toward  the  softening  of  the  hard  lines  of  life.  The 
Huguenots,  for  instance,  coming  from  a  land  more  ad- 
vanced in  some  ways  than  Holland  or  England,  estab- 
lished a  home  life  different  from  that  of  the  other  col- 
onists. Their  home  life  was  pleasant  in  contrast  to 
much  of  the  severer  life  around.  Children  were  in- 
structed with  more  gentleness  and  consideration  than 
among  the  English  and  Dutch.  Warfield  notes  the 
"esprit  of  the  Huguenot  women."  There  were  Hu- 
guenots in  both  the  middle  and  the  northern  colonies. 
They  were  numerous  in  New  York,  where  Dutch  in- 
fluence was  also  strong.     The  Dutch  were  a  milder 


154       ^^^^'  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

species  of  the  genus  to  which  the  Puritans  belonged."® 
New  York,  like  New  England,  recalls  the  fact  that 
the  racial  endowment  of  sex  is  more  than  sufficient  for 
race  perpetuity  when  relatively  civilized  conditions  ob- 
tain. In  Dutch  days  "improper  conduct"  with  women 
was  a  frequent  occurrence,  ranging  from  the  darkest 
crimes  to  words  and  acts  that  are  not  now  subjects  of 
law.  In  the  later  years  of  the  Old  Dutch  rule,  "sins  of 
sensuality"  were  frequent.  One  case  was  hushed  up  in- 
asmuch as  the  woman  was  an  unmarried  daughter  of 
Dominie  Schaats  of  Albany.  Her  paramour  was  a 
married  man.  Stuyvesant  wrote  bitter  words  about  the 
afifair.  In  the  early  English  days  his  half-sister  Mar- 
griet  had  a  child  by  a  rich  bachelor  to  whom  she  was 
affianced  but  whose  sudden  demise  forestalled  the  mar- 
riage. This  incident  does  not  seem  to  have  disgraced 
her,  for  she  soon  found  a  husband.  It  may  be  that  a 
less  happy  event  is  indicated  in  the  complaint  of  a  farm 
wife  in  171 6  at  Court  of  Sessions  at  Westchester  that 
"a  travelling  woman  who  came  out  of  ye  Jerseys  who 
kept  school  at  several  places  in  Rye  parish,  hath  left 
with  her  a  child  eleven  months  old,  for  which  she  de- 
sires relief  from  the  parish." 

The  Dutch  custom  of  long  betrothal  seems  to  have 
had  evil  results.  Some  persons  had  delayed  the  cere- 
mony even  for  months  after  banns.  Apparently  couples 
had  been  living  together  after  banns  without  marriage. 
It  was  accordingly  ordered  in  1658  that  no  man  and 
woman  should  keep  house  together  as  man  and  wife 
until  they  were  legally  married;  and  a  fine  was  to  be 
the  penalty  for  any  violation  of  the  order.  The  Dutch 
passed  a  law  requiring  the  consummation  of  marriage 
within  a  month  after  publication  had  been  completed 

69  A  review  of  the  closing  pages  of  Chapter  II  will  prepare  the  reader 
for  a  study  of  this  colony. 


Sex  and  Marriage  in  New  York  155 

unless  there  was  legal  opposition.  Bundling  was  prac- 
ticed but  finally  came  under  prohibition  of  the  au- 
thorities. Accounts  of  scandal  in  high  society  can  be 
found  in  the  histories  of  all  old  New  York  towns.^° 
Tho  strict  regulation  of  marital  relations  was  attempted 
by  the  Dutch  colonists  and  severe  sentences  were  pro- 
vided for  adultery,  sexual  transgressions  were  not  treat- 
ed with  so  great  rigor  as  in  New  England.  Neither 
death  nor  the  scarlet  letter  was  inflicted. 

We  have  noted  the  custom  of  civil  marriage  in  the 
low  countries.  Marriage  by  justice  of  the  peace  was 
made  lawful  by  the  States  General  of  Holland  from 
1590.  The  laws  of  the  Netherlands  were,  indeed,  not 
uniform  and  in  the  Dutch  American  colony  it  would 
seem  that  the  ceremony  had  to  be  performed  by  a  min- 
ister with  religious  rites  tho  there  is  difiference  of 
opinion  on  this  point.  An  authorized  celebrant,  at 
least,  was  essential:  the  principle  of  English  common 
law  marriage  did  not  obtain. 

In  the  Netherlands,  usually  parental  consent  and 
often  publication  of  banns  was  made  essential.  A  ma- 
jority of  the  early  settlers  of  New  Netherlands  hailed 
from  Guilderland  and  the  marriage  laws  of  that  prov- 
ince naturally  prevailed.  There  a  marriage  was  void 
if  the  express  consent  of  the  father,  or  if  he  were  dead, 
the  mother,  had  not  been  obtained  before  the  marriage 
of  a  son.  With  regard  to  daughters  the  law  was  still 
more  rigorous;  even  marriage  with  parental  consent 
did  not  release  a  girl  from  parental  authority  in  case 
her  husband  died  while  she  was  still  under  age.  Gov- 
ernor Stuyvesant  of  New  Netherlands  was  strict  in  his 
application  of  the  law  of  parental  consent  and  due  no- 
tice.    Proper  forms  had  to  be  observed. 

In  violation  of  the  law  as  to  banns,  etc.,  a  sheriff  of 

■'o  Giddings.     Natural  History  of  American  Morals,  34. 


156       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

Flushing  married  a  widower  to  a  girl  against  her  pa- 
rents' consent  and  contrary  to  law.  On  April  3,  1648, 
the  officer  was  fined,  dismissed  from  office,  and  the  mar- 
riage annulled.  The  groom  was  fined  and  required  to 
have  the  marriage  again  solemnized  after  three  proc- 
lamations. 

In  1654  the  court  of  Gravesend  had  set  up  and  af- 
fixed banns  between  Johann  van  Beeck  and  Maria  Ver- 
leth  of  New  Amsterdam.  The  action  of  Gravesend 
was  thought  to  prepare 

A  way  whereby  hereafter  some  sons  and  daughters  unwilling  to 
obey  parents  and  guardians  will,  contrary  to  their  wishes, 
secretly  go  and  get  married  in  such  villages  or  elsewhere.  .  . 
It  is  usual  according  to  the  custom  of  our  Fatherland,  that 
every  one  shall  have  three  publications  at  the  place  where  his 
domicile  is,  and  then  he  may  go  and  be  married  wherever  he 
pleases. 

The  magistrates  of  Gravesend  appealed  to  their  charter 
by  which  they  were  guaranteed  against  "molestation 
from  any  magistrate  or  minister  that  may  extend  juris- 
diction over  them."  Van  Beeck  appeared  to  urge  his 
case.    The  New  Amsterdam  council  noted 

Who  in  the  beginning  instituted  marriage ;  also  what  the  apostle 
of  the  Gentiles  teaches  therein.  .  .  The  proper  and  at- 
tained ages  of  Johannes  van  Beeck  and  Marya  Verlith.  .  . 
The  consent  of  the  father  and  mother  on  the  daughter's 
side.  .  .  The  distance  and  remoteness  of  places  between  this 
and  our  fatherland  together  with  the  dififerences  between  Hol- 
land and  England.  .  .  The  danger  that  in  such  circum- 
stances matters  by  long  delay  might  come  to  be  disclosed  be- 
tween these  aforesaid  young  people,  which  would  bring  dis- 
grace on  both  families,  i  .  We  think  .  .  .  that  by  a 
proper  solemnization  of  marriage  (for  the  Apostle  to  the 
Hebrews  calls  the  marriage  bed  honorable)  the  lesser  and 
greater  sins  are  prevented. 

Accordingly  banns  should  be  proclaimed.     But  some 


Sex  and  Marriage  in  New  York  157 

trouble  arose  and  the  young  people,  eloping  to  New 
England,  were  married  by  a  farmer  in  Connecticut. 
This  marriage  was  of  course  unlawful.  Stuyvesant 
writes : 

Johannes  van  Beeck  had  affixed  a  poster  that  his  marriage  con- 
tracted contrary  to  his  father's  prohibition  to  marry  abroad 
has  been  declared  lawful  and  proper  by  the  council  of  New 
Amsterdam,  we  want  information. 

Finally  the  marriage  was  recognized  as  legal. 

In  1674,  the  year  of  the  Dutch  Restoration,  Ralph 
Doxy  was  indicted  for  unlawfully  entering 

Into  the  married  state  with  Mary  van  Harris,  making  use,  for 
that  purpose,  of  a  forged  certificate,  and  that  Deft,  hath  still  a 
wife  alive  who  resides  in  New  England;  therefore,  [the  pros- 
ecution] concludes  that  the  Deft,  ought  to  be  conveyed  to  the 
place  where  justice  is  usually  executed,  severely  whipped,  and, 
furthermore,  banished  the  country  forever,  with  costs.  Deft, 
denies  ever  having  been  married  to  a  woman  before;  acknowl- 
edges his  guilt  as  regards  the  forged  certificate;  says,  that 
through  love  for  Mary  Harris  he  had  allowed  it  to  be  executed 
by  a  certain  Englishman  now  gone  to  the  Barbadoes  and  there- 
fore prays  forgiveness.  Whereas  parties,  on  both  sides,  are  ex- 
pecting further  proofs,  the  Governor  General  and  Council  or- 
der the  case     .     .     .     continued. 

Later  the  marriage  was  declared 

Unlawful,  inasmuch  as  it  was  solemnized  by  Jacobus  Fabricius, 
who  had  no  legal  power  so  to  act,  and  without  his  engagement 
having  been  published  three  several  times  according  to  the  laws 
and  customs  of  the  government;  but  finding  the  charge  against 
him  of  having  a  second  wife  in  New  England  unfounded,  he  is 
therefore  permitted  to  confirm  himself  in  wedlock  with  the 
above-named  Mary,  according  to  the  laws  of  the  government; 
in  regard  to  the  forged  certificate  .  .  .  he  is  pardoned  for 
this  time  on  his  promise  of  improvement,  and  request  for  for- 
giveness; and  finally,  they  condemn  the  Deft,  in  the  costs  in- 
curred herein. 

The  celebrant,  Fabricius,  a  "late"  Lutheran  minister, 


158       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

was  suspended  from  office  of  the  ministry  for  one  year 
for  performing  the  ceremony  without  legal  authority. 

The  same  year  in  case  of  a  man  requesting  leave  of 
marriage  with  "Jane  Rause,  widow  of  Edward  Rause, 
who  died  about  two  and  a  half  years  ago  at  Carolina" 
it  was  "ordered:  that  the  magistrates  of  Rustdorp  in- 
quire as  to  the  certainty  of  said  Edward  Rause's  death 
and  report  their  conclusions."  This  incident  recalls 
New  England  experience  with  deserting  spouses.  Big- 
amists were  not  uncommon  at  New  Amsterdam. 

The  English  conquest  did  not  much  disturb  the 
smooth  run  of  life.  Dutch  household  customs  were  re- 
tained as  far  as  practicable.  But  contract  de  presenfi 
proved  by  witnesses  and  followed  by  cohabitation  now 
constituted  a  legal  marriage.  Ceremonial  marriage 
was  at  first  celebrated  by  justice  of  the  peace  (as  al- 
lowed by  "the  Duke's  Laws")  or  clergy,  on  the  gov- 
ernor's license  or  publication  of  banns  thrice  in  some 
place  of  worship.  Clergy  of  all  denominations  offici- 
ated. In  1678  Governor  Andros  reported  that  "minis- 
ters have  been  so  scarce  and  religions  so  many  that  no 
acct.  cann  be  given  of  children's  births  or  christenings." 
"Scarcity  of  ministers  and  law  admitting  marriages  by 
justices  no  acct.  cann  be  given  of  the  number  marryed." 

In  some  cases  the  minister  gave  a  certificate  of  per- 
mission for  marriage.    Thus  at  Flatbush: 

Isaac  Hasselburg  and  Elizabeth  Baylis  have  had  their  procla- 
mation in  our  church  as  commonly  our  manner  and  custom  is, 
and  no  opposition  or  hindrance  came  against  them,  so  as  that 
they  may  be  confirmed  in  ye  banns  of  Matrimony,  whereto  we 
wish  them  blessing.  ,  .  March  17th,  1689,  Rudolph  Var- 
rick,  minister. 

This  voucher  was  probably  in  order  to  authorize  the 
performance  of  the  ceremony  in  another  parish.  Se- 
vere penalties  were  fixed  during  the  British  regime  for 


Sex  and  Marriage  in  New  York  159 

ministers  violating  the  law  requiring  license  or  pub- 
lication. 

Marriage  fees  in  colonial  days  were  not  very  large 
and  it  seems  that  they  were  not  always  kept  by  the  min- 
ister. In  one  pastor's  account  we  find  him  paying  over 
to  the  consistory  seventy-eight  guilders  and  ten  stuyvers 
for  fourteen  marriage  fees.  This  was  in  the  Dutch 
regime. 

After  the  conquest  the  Church  of  England  tried  to 
gain  headway.  In  numerous  governors'  commissions 
we  find  such  instructions  as: 

You  are  to  take  especial  care,  that  a  table  of  marriages  estab- 
lished by  ye  canons  of  the  Church  of  England,  bee  hung  up  in 
all  orthodox  churches  and  duly  observed. 

Governor  Hunter  is  urged  to  try  to  get  a  law  passed  if 
not  already  done  for  the  strict  observance  of  said  table. 
An  English  clergyman  writing  in  1695  complains  of 
the  performance  of  many  marriages  by  justices.     In 
1748  through  Episcopal  influence  the  wording  of  the 
license  which  previously  had  run  "to  all  Protestant 
ministers"  was  altered  to  "all  Protestant  ministers  of 
the  gospel."     Smith  in  the  History  of  New  York  says: 
The  Episcopal  missionaries     ^     .     .     not  many  years  ago,  at- 
tempted by  a  petition  to  the  late  governor  Clinton,  to  engross 
the   privilege  of  solemnizing  all   marriages.     A  great  clamor 
ensued  and  the  attempt  was  abortive.     Before  that  time  the 
ceremony  was  even  performed  by  justices  of  the  peace,  and  the 
judge   at   law   determined   such   marriages   to   be   legal.     The 
governor's  licenses  now  run  to  "all  Protestant  ministers  of  the 
gospel."     Whether  the  justices  act  still  when  the  banns  are 
published  in  our  churches,  which  is  customary  only  with  the 
poor,  I  have  not  been  informed.     [As  a  matter  of  fact,  justices 
no    longer    meddled    except    in    counties    where    clergy    were 
scarce.]     Marriages  in  a  new  country  ought  to  have  the  highest 
encouragements,   and   it  is  on   this  account,   perhaps,   that  we 
have  no  provincial  law  against  such  as  are  clandestine,  tho  they 


i6o       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

often  happen,  and  in  some  cases,  are  attended  with  consequences 
equally  melancholy  and  mischievous. 

The  Quakers  had  some  trouble  with  marriage  regula- 
tions and  on  one  occasion  petitioned  for  remission  of 
fine  imposed  ''for  suffering  our  daughters  to  marrie 
contrary  to  their  law."  Later  Quakers  were  permitted 
to  use  their  own  marriage  ceremony. 

In  1679  a  lamentable  irregularity  occurred,  as  re- 
corded in  a  letter  of  Luke  Wattson  against  Captain 
John  Avery,  a  magistrate: 

He  tooke  upon  himselfe  to  marry  the  widdow  Clament  to  one 
Bryant  Rowles,  without  publiquecation  notwithstanding  she  was 
out  aske  at  least  a  month  to  another  man,  namely  Edward 
Cocke;  the  which  when  the  said  Cocke  heard  that  she  was 
marryed  to  another  man  said  that  it  would  be  his  death  and 
presently  went  home,  fell  sick,  and  in  fortyeight  hours  after 
dyed,  he  left  it  on  his  death  that  her  marrying  was  the  cause 
of  his  dyeing.  .  .  Hee  took  upon  him  to  grant  a  licence  to 
Marry  Daniel  Browne  to  Sussan  Garland  widdow,  without 
any  publiqueation,  which  marriage  was  effected,  notwithstand- 
ing it  is  generally  known  or  at  least  the  said  Daniel  confesses 
that  he  knows  no  other  but  that  he  have  a  wife  living  in  Eng- 
land.^i 

As  already  suggested,  license  from  the  governor  was 
an  aristocratic  resort  for  people  that  could  afford  thus 
to  purchase  exemption  from  publication  of  banns.  It 
offered  a  convenient  loophole  for  corruption.  The 
Earl  of  Bellomont  wrote  in  1700  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Board  that  during  his  absence  in  Boston 

Mr.  Smith  the  chaplain  .  .  .  comes  to  the  lieutenant  gov- 
ernor and  desires  him  to  sign  a  blank  licence,  pretending  the  per- 
sons to  be  married  were  desirous  to  have  their  names  concealed. 
The  lieutenant  governor  suspecting  Smith's  knavery  refuses  to 
sign  the  blank  licence.  Afterward  Smith  brings  a  licence  filled 
up  with  the  names  of  Adam  Ball  and  the  maiden  name  of  a 

71  Documents  relating  to  Colonial  History  of  the  State  of  New  York,  vol. 
xii,  624-625. 


Sex  and  Marriage  in  New  York  i6i 

married  woman ;  he  afterwards  adds  a  sillable  to  the  mans  name 
in  the  licence  (after  the  lieutenant  governor  had  signed  it) 
and  then  it  was  Baldridge  the  pirate.  .  .  and  the  woman 
was  the  wife  of  Buckmaster  a  pirate.  ,  .  Being  askt  why  he 
married  Baldridge  to  another  man's  wife,  he  answered  she  had 
made  oath  to  him  that  she  was  never  married  to  Buckmas- 
ter. .  .  It  appears  Buckmaster  was  married  to  the  woman 
by  a  justice  of  the  peace  in  one  of  the  Jerseys  which  is  their 
way  of  marrying  there.'^^ 

It  is  easy  to  see  the  possibilities  of  evil  in  the  administra- 
tions of  the  less  scrupulous  governors. 

During  the  century  between  the  British  conquest  and 
the  war  of  the  Revolution  most  marriages  of  genteel 
folks  were  performed  by  executive  license.  It  was  con- 
sidered very  plebeian,  almost  vulgar,  to  be  married 
under  publication  or  posting  of  banns  as  was  done  in 
New  England  without  violence  to  fashionable  stan- 
dards. An  item  from  a  New  York  paper  of  1765  shows 
the  prevalence  of  aversion  to  the  publication  of  banns: 

We  are  creditly  informed  that  there  was  married  on  last  Sun- 
day evening  ...  a  very  respectable  couple  that  had  pub- 
lished three  different  times  in  Trinity  church.  A  laudable 
example  and  worthy  to  be  followed.  If  this  decent  and  for 
many  reasons  proper  method  of  publication  was  once  generally 
to  take  place,  we  should  have  no  more  of  clandestine  marriages ; 
and  save  the  expense  of  licenses,  no  inconsiderable  sum  these 
hard  and  depressing  times. 

A  copy  of  the  New  York  Gazette  and  Postboy  of  about 
the  same  time  contains  this  item: 

As  no  licenses  for  marriage  could  be  obtained  since  the  first  of 
November  for  want  of  stamped  paper,  we  can  assure  the  public 
several  genteel  couples  were  published  in  the  different  churches 
of  this  city  last  week ;  and  we  hear  that  the  young  ladies  of  this 
place  are  determined  to  join  hands  with  none  but  such  as  will  to 
the  utmost  endeavor  to  abolish  the  custom  of  marriage  with 
license  which  amounts  to  many  hundred  f)er  annum  which 
might  be  saved. 

^2  Documents  relating  to  Colonial  History  of  the  State  of  Neiv  York,  vol. 
iv,  766. 


i62       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

It  will  be  remembered  also  that  the  governor's  income 
from  this  source  made  the  colonial  expedient  of  with- 
holding the  salary  of  refractory  governors  less  potent 
in  New  York. 

The  marriage  ceremony  in  old  New  York  usually 
took  place  at  the  home  of  the  bride's  parents.  Wed- 
dings were  great  events.  They  furnished  occasions  to 
take  collections  or  subscriptions  for  worthy  purposes." 
In  some  towns  the  pastor  required  written  consent  of 
the  parents  on  both  sides  before  the  words  were  said. 
A  riotous  charivari  followed  the  wedding.  On  Long 
Island  the  groom's  parents  often  kept  open  house  on  the 
day  after  the  bride's.  There  was  no  bridal  tour  but 
sometimes  the  bridal  party  was  entertained  successive 
days  by  friends  for  miles  around.  In  New  York  the 
groom's  friends  called  for  several  days  to  drink  punch. 
It  was  customary  in  this  colony,  as  in  New  England, 
for  the  new  couple  to  appear  in  church  on  the  Sabbath 
following  the  marriage.  Often  they  entered  late  for 
display. 

Such  ostentatious  recognitions  of  the  importance  of 
marriage  as  these  customs  furnish  seem  normal  to  us. 
They  are  a  survival  of  the  struggle  for  tribal  existence 
which  puts  such  a  premium  on  fecundit\'.  An  almost 
grewsomely  contrasting  relic,  outlandish  to  us,  betokens 
more  vividly  the  importance  of  every  man  as  a  sire  in 
the  hazardous  days  of  tribal  struggle.  The  episode  re- 
calling this  primitive  urgency  occurred  in  New  York 
in  1784.  A  condemned  malefactor  about  to  be  exe- 
cuted was  reprieved  and  set  free  by  his  marriage  on  the 
gallows  to  a  woman  clad  only  in  a  shift.'* 

The  same  conditions  as  furthered  marriage  and 
fecundity   in   New   England   were   operative    in    this 

"3  Earle.     Colonial  Days  in  Old  Ne<w  York,  63-64. 

"*  Earle.     Customs  and  Fashions  in  Old  A'e<w  England,  79. 


Sex  and  Marriage  in  New  York  163 

neighbor  colony.  Men  and  women  married  early  and 
remarried  promptly  and  repeatedly.  The  great  lack 
of  hired  service  that  rendered  a  fatherless  or  mother- 
less home  well-nigh  impossible  magnified  the  marital 
relation.  Family  life  was  honored  as  the  only  fit  con- 
dition. Second  and  third  marriages  were  sufficiently* 
common  among  the  early  New  Netherlanders.  At 
Gravesend  a  desolate  widower  became  enamored  of  a 
milkmaid  on  first  sight  as  she  milked  her  father's  cows. 
He  proposed  on  the  spot,  posted  to  town  for  a  license, 
and  carried  off  the  fair  Grietje.  The  first  of  the  New 
York  Livingstons  came  in  obscure  poverty  to  the  bed- 
side of  a  Rensellaer  in  Albany  to  prepare  his  will. 
"Send  him  away,"  said  the  dying  man  to  his  beautiful 
wife,  "he  will  be  your  second  husband."  And  the 
prophecy  was  fulfilled."  One  man,  a  German,  appears 
in  the  chronicles  as  the  fourth  husband  of  his  first  wife 
and  the  third  husband  of  his  second  wife  who  had  been 
previously  married  to  a  Dane  and  to  a  Dutchman.^" 

Nearly  all  the  first  settlers  at  New  Amsterdam  were 
young  married  people.  Their  children  grew  up  to 
marriageable  years  and  in  the  latter  part  of  the  Dutch 
regime  the  place  was  celebrated  for  its  marriageable 
folk  and  its  betrothals.  Early  mating  was  facilitated 
by  the  innocent  simplicity  of  society  that  dispensed 
with  chaperons.  Travelers  sought  good  wives  here  and 
found  them. 

Emigrant  wives  brought  with  them  maids  to  serve 
three  years  for  their  passage.  The  numerous  girls  of 
marriageable  age  that  came  over  were  soon  appropri- 
ated by  young  Dutchmen  and  housewives  had  to  bewail 
the  maids  snatched  away  before  their  time  was  up.  In 
1642  the  patroon  of  Staten  Island  sued  the  parents  of  a 

^^' Earle.     Colonial  Days  in  Old  Netu  York,  6i. 

""^  Van  Rensellaer.     History  of  the  City  of  New  York,  vol.  ii,  142. 


164       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

girl  for  the  loss  of  her  services  through  her  marriage. 
The  bride  told  the  magistrates  that  her  first  acquaint- 
ance with  the  young  man  was  when  her  mother  and  an- 
other person  brought  him  to  see  her.  After  rejecting 
him  several  times  she  had  eloped  with  him  in  a  boat. 
She  offered  to  render  as  compensation  the  handkerchief 
that  her  husband  had  presented  as  wedding  gift.  In 
1656  Hans  Fromer  demanded  that  Madame  Van  der 
Douck  "give  lawful  reason  why  she  forbid  the  bond  of 
matrimony  between  him  and  Maeyken  Huybertson." 
The  defendant's  son  showed  the  maid's  service  contract, 
but  the  authorities  released  the  girl  and  let  her  marry, 
which  laxity  encouraged  all  maids  to  rebel.  Service 
contracts  proved  less  sacred  than  the  social  need  of  in- 
crease in  population.  Madame  Judith  Varlith  next 
had  to  release  her  maid  and  pay  her  much  wampum 
and  linen.  The  wives  of  the  councillors  rebelled  at 
such  outrage;  so  arrangements  had  to  be  made  to  im- 
port cargoes  of  young  women  from  Holland  under 
rigid  contracts  which  the  dignitaries  had  pledged  them- 
selves in  private  to  hold  sacred." 

Breach  of  promise  cases  sometimes  marred  the  calm 
of  Old  New  York.  Stuyvesant  himself  intervened  in 
the  case  of  a  maid  deceived  by  promise  of  marriage.  In 
1654  Grietje  Waemans  produced  a  marriage  ring  and 
letters  promising  marriage  as  grounds  on  which  Daniel 
de  Silla  be  "condemned  to  legally  marry  her."  It  was 
vain  for  him  to  plead  intoxication  as  defense.  Frangois 
Soleil  swore  he  would  rather  cast  in  his  lot  with  the 
Indians  than  marry  his  abandoned  Rose.  Pieter  Koch 
and  Anna  van  Voorst  were  unwilling  to  carry  out  an 
agreement  to  marry.    The  burgomasters  and  schepens 

^^  Van  Rensellaer.  The  Goede  Vrouio  of  Mana-ha-ta,  16-17;  Earle.  Co- 
lonial Days  in  Old  Netu  York,  52-53. 


Sex  and  Marriage  in  New  York  165 

decided  that  the  promise  held  and  forbade  either  to 
marry  another  person  without  permission  of  the  be- 
trothed and  the  court.  Anna  flagrantly  married  an- 
other man  without  asking  any  one's  leave.  A  young 
widow,  plaintiff  in  a  breach  of  promise  suit,  offered  as 
proof  a  shilling,  her  second  lover's  gift.  (Untying  the 
marriage  knot  in  which  a  piece  of  money  was  tied  and 
presented  signified  consent  to  speedy  marriage.) 

In  New  York  the  economic  element  in  marriage  re- 
ceived due  attention.  As  the  Dutch  women  were  as 
keen  traders  as  the  men  the  bargaining  was  on  a  more 
equal  footing  than  in  other  colonies,  where  ladies  usu- 
ally got  the  worst  of  the  deal.  This  equality  of  bargain- 
ing power  between  the  sexes  in  New  York  may  have 
covered  some  of  the  sordidness  of  economic  marriage. 

Bachelors  were  not  in  good  standing  among  the 
Dutch,  at  least  in  Albany.  The  colony  had  no  laws,  as 
in  New  England,  to  regulate  these  misfits  and  they 
shared  in  the  benefit  of  Dutch  tolerance  toward  mis- 
guided folk.  But  where  marriage  was  so  spontaneous, 
bachelors  were  almost  pariahs.  They  did  manage  to  find 
shelter  but  not  home.  Mrs.  Grant  describes  them  as 
passing  in  and  out  like  silent  ghosts  and  seeming  to  feel 
themselves  superior  to  the  world.  Their  association  was 
almost  exclusively  with  one  another  tho  sometimes  one 
took  part  in  the  affairs  of  the  family  with  which  he 
lived.  Fisher  is  reminded  by  them  of  rogue  elephants. 
'Tn  colonial  times,"  he  says,  "we  often  find  the  people 
living  such  a  simple  life  that  they  instinctively  fol- 
lowed some  of  the  primitive  laws  which  have  peopled 
the  earth." 

The  different  strains  of  continental  blood  blended  by 
marriage  into  one  predominantly  Dutch.  Then  inter- 
marriage preserved  such   racial   integrity  that  many 


i66       The  American  Fatnily- Colonial  Period 

rural  families  and  many  notable  city  families  continued 
till  recent  times  with  little  or  no  infusion  of  British 
blood/'^ 

At  the  hejjinning  of  the  i8th  century  the  little  isolated 
community  of  New  Harlem  consisted  of  half  a  hundred 
homes.  ,  .  "Intermarriage,"  says  Rilcer,  "among  the  resi- 
dent families  was  the  rule,  and  he  was  thought  a  bold  swain 
truly  who  ventured  beyond  the  pale  of  the  community  to  woo  a 
mate."  .  .  Fifty  years  after  the  village  was  settled,  or  about 
the  end  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century,  there  was 
scarcely  one  of  the  families  of  the  patentees  that  was  not  re- 
lated to  every  other  of  the  twenty-five  or  thirty  families  that 
first  settled  the  village.''^ 

Doctor  Douglass,  in  colonial  days,  had  a  visionary 
scheme  for  affiliation  with  the  Indians.     He  said : 

Our  young  missionaries  may  procure  a  perpetual  alliance  and 
commercial  advantage  with  the  Indians,  which  the  Roman 
Catholic  clergy  cannot  do,  because  they  are  forbid  to  marry.  I 
mean  our  missionaries  may  intermarry  with  the  daughters  of 
the  sachems  and  other  considerable  Indians,  and  their  progeny 
will  forever  be  a  certain  cement  between  us  and  the  Indians. 

William  Johnson  married  a  German  girl  by  whom 
he  had  several  children.  After  her  death  he  had  sev- 
eral mistresses  of  whom  the  favorite  was  a  beautiful 
Indian  girl,  Molly  Brant,  sister  of  Joseph  Brant.  She 
bore  him  eight  children  and  he  lived  with  her  until  his 
death.'"' 

The  presence  of  the  negroes  also  suggested  mis- 
cegenation. But  in  some  regions  at  least  this  practice 
must  have  been  tabooed  by  the  colonists  if  we  are  to 
believe  the  assertion  that  after  the  Revolution  the  path 
of  the  British  army  could  be  traced  by  the  presence  of 
mulattoes.'^ 


^^  Van  Rensellaer.     History  of  the  City  of  Neiu  York,  vol.  ii,  142. 
^»  Pierce.     Ne<w  Harlem  Past  and  Present,  313. 

80  Fisher.    Men,  Women,  and  Manners  in  Colonial  Times,  vol.  ii,  96. 
"—  Idem,  118. 


IX.     FAMILY  LIFE  AND  PROBLEMS  IN 
COLONIAL  NEW  YORK 

The  marriage  ritual  among  the  Dutch  was  full  of 
realism.  The  groom  was  told  to  lead,  instruct,  com- 
fort, protect,  and  love  his  wife  and  maintain  his  home 
honestly.  The  bride  was  warned  against  lording  it 
over  her  spouse.  Domestic  life  in  the  colony  was  in 
the  main  quiet  and  commonplace.  Family  troubles 
seldom  came  to  court.  Mrs.  Grant  testifies  to  the  hap- 
piness of  marital  life  in  Albany: 

Inconstancy  or  even  indifference  among  married  couples  was  un- 
heard of.  .  .  The  extreme  affection  they  bore  their  mutual 
offspring  was  a  bond  that  forever  endeared  them  to  each  other. 
Marriage  in  this  colony  was  always  early,  very  often  happy, 
and  very  seldom,  indeed  "interested." 

The  Dutch  women  were  strongly  influential,  active 
in  affairs,  and  respected  by  their  husbands.  In  Dutch 
neither  party  is  married  to  the  other:  bride  or  groom 
marries  with  the  other.  In  New  Netherlands  both 
sexes  received  education  and  men  and  women  were 
more  equal  than  later  under  the  English  fashion.  (In 
New  York,  1780,  the  men  monopolized  the  seats  on  the 
mall  leaving  the  ladies  to  stand. )^^  To  the  end  of  the 
colonial  period  the  enjoyment  by  women  of  greater  in- 
dependence than  in  communities  of  English  origin  at- 
tested the  Dutch  sources  of  New  York."''  The  wife  was 
her  husband's  equal  in  the  eyes  of  the  law  which  rec- 

^2  Earle.     Colonial  Dames  and  Goodiuives,  200. 

83  Van  Rensellaer.     History  of  the  City  of  Neiv   York,  vol.  ii,   157. 


i68       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

ognized  a  community  in  possessions  if  there  was  no 
ante-nuptial  contract.''  Such  a  contract  often  provided 
that  tlic  wife  and  husband  should  inherit  absolutely 
from  each  other.  Often  joint  wills  of  like  tenor  were 
made.  This  was  a  distinctively  Dutch  usage.  Such 
wills  are  significant  of  the  mutuality  that  characterized 
married  life  in  the  New  York  colony.  But  in  church 
the  seats  of  husband  and  wife  were  ordinarily  separate. 
Women's  high  ambition  was  to  be  able  housewives. 
Married  women  were  distinguished  from  maidens  by 
their  dress.  They  stayed  at  home,  read  their  Bibles 
and  managed.  Every  good  housewife  made  the  ap- 
parel of  her  family.  The  wife  was  the  head  of  the 
household,  the  sovereign  of  domestic  affairs.  Smith, 
writing  after  nearly  a  century  of  the  English  regime, 
says: 

The  ladies  .  .  .  are  comely  and  dress  well,  and  scarce  any 
of  them  have  distorted  shapes.  Tinctured  with  a  Dutch  edu- 
cation, they  manage  their  families  with  becoming  parsimony, 
good  providence,  and  singular  neatness. 

Marriage  had  a  sedative  effect  on  men.  In  Albany 
when  a  man  married  he  was  supposed  to  lose  two  pleas- 
ures, coasting  and  pig-  and  turkey-stealing.  Nothing 
was  allowed  to  disturb  the  serenity  of  Dutch  house- 
keeping or  the  spotless  order  of  the  parlor.  For  a  time 
New  Netherlands  experienced  lack  of  servants;  so  wife 
and  daughters  performed  the  work  of  house  and  dairy. 
Mrs.  Grant  says:  "A  woman  in  very  easy  circum- 
stances, and  abundantly  gentle  in  form  and  manners, 
would  sow,  and  plant,  and  rake  incessantly."  Home 
w^as  home.  Irving  says:  "Dinner  was  invariably  a 
private  meal,  and  the  fat  old  burghers  showed  incon- 
testable signs  of  disapprobation  and  uneasiness  at  being 

8*  Van  Rensellaer.    History  of  the  City  of  Neiu  York,  vol.  i,  480. 


Family  Life  and  Problems  in  New  York     169 

surprised  by  a  visit  from  a  neighbor  on  such  occasions." 
Especially  did  wives  resent  the  visits  of  fire-prevention 
inspectors  to  their  homes,  and  abuse  these  men.  Sol- 
diers, often  billeted  in  private  homes,  were  a  nuisance. 
One  citizen  wrote  that  "they  made  him  weary." 

It  was  in  the  home  and  in  business  that  woman  shone 
rather  than  in  intellectual  afifairs.  Women  teachers' 
and  girl-scholars  were  not  eminent  in  New  York  in 
early  days.  But  women  were  active  as  shop-keepers, 
merchants,  ship-owners,  Indian  traders.  It  was  com- 
mon for  a  wife  to  hold  her  husband's  power  of  attorney 
in  his  absence,  to  help  him  in  business,  or  to  carry  on 
the  business  after  his  death.  It  is  said  that  widows  in 
New  Amsterdam  often  assumed  the  management  of 
considerable  estates.  Widow  DeVries  carried  on  her 
deceased  husband's  Dutch  trade  making  repeated  trips 
to  Holland  as  supercargo  on  her  own  ships.  She  mar- 
ried Frederick  Phillipse  and  by  her  keenness,  thrift, 
and  profitable  business  helped  to  make  him  the  richest 
man  in  the  colony.  Widow  Provoost  enjoyed  equal 
success  at  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century.  She 
had  a  huge  business  correspondence.  New  York  re- 
cords other  noteworthy  examples  of  woman's  ability. 
Jane  Colden  was  a  distinguished  botanist  and  "She 
makes  the  best  cheese  I  ever  ate  in  America."  ^'^  Sev- 
eral women  in  New  Amsterdam  were  tavern-keepers 
and  tapsters. 

The  court  records  of  Brooklyn  contain  a  scandalous 
instance  of  female  militancy:  Mistress  Jonica  Schampf 
and  Widow  Rachel  Luguer  assaulted  Peter  Praa,  the 
captain  of  the  militia,  when  he  was  at  the  head  of  his 
troops  on  training  day  in  1690.  They  pulled  his  hair 
and  beat  him  and  their  "Ivill  Tnormities"  brought  him 

85  Earle.     Colonial  Dames  and  GoodivweSy  86-87. 


lyo       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

within  an  inch  of  his  life.'"  Among  the  Dutch,  people 
were  brought  before  the  court  for  saying  of  another 
such  uncomplimentary  things  as  "He  hath  not  half  a 
wife."  One  couple  sued  a  woman  for  saying  that  the 
wife  in  crossing  a  muddy  street  raised  her  petticoats  too 
high. 

Pioneer  conditions- the  emptiness  of  the  country  and 
the  shortage  of  hands -put  a  premium  on  large  fam- 
ilies. Besides  in  1650  the  West  India  Company  ofifered 
one  year's  exemption  from  tenths  for  each  child  con- 
veyed to  or  born  in  New  Netherlands.  There  was  no 
"race  suicide"  among  the  colonists  tho  children  seem 
to  have  been  less  numerous  than  in  New  England.  We 
are  told  that  in  New  Harlem  at  the  beginning  of  the 
eighteenth  century  ''the  small  two-story  Dutch  homes 
generally  sheltered  each  a  half-score  or  more  of  sturdy 
youngsters."  But  this  was  a  small  isolated  community. 
At  Albany  the  Dutch  had  fewer  children  than  had  the 
people  in  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut.  The  Dutch 
kept  a  record  of  births  in  the  family  Bible  and  also  a 
church  register.  But  by  the  time  of  the  English  regime 
the  heterogeneity  of  the  population  left  gaps  in  the 
record.  In  171 2,  Governor  Hunter  reported  to  the 
Lords  of  Trade:  "As  to  births  and  burials  has  never 
been  any  register  kept  that  I  can  hear  of." 

It  may  be  that  the  absence  of  Puritan  rigor  allowed 
a  larger  proportion  of  children  to  survive  and  that  ac- 
cordingly the  Dutch  had  settled  to  a  lower  fecundity. 
But  the  repeated  marriages  guaranteed  a  sufficient  pos- 
terity. Dongan  had  heard  of  one  woman  "yet  alive" 
who  had  "upwards  of  360  living  descendants."  Small 
families  were  rare.  Mothers  nursed  their  offspring 
and  they  flourished.     Irving  says: 

8^  Fisher.     Men,  IVomen,  and  Manners  in  Colonial  Times,  vol.  ii,  57. 


Family  Life  and  Problems  in  New  York     171 

To  have  seen  a  numerous  household  assembled  around  the  fire, 
one  would  have  imagined  that  he  was  transported  back  to  happy 
days  of  primeval  simplicity.  The  fire  places  were  of  a  truly 
patriarchal  magnitude. 

The  midwife's  calling  was  much  respected.  The 
New  Amsterdam  midwife  had  a  house  provided  by  the 
government.  The  profession  was  licensed.  Some  of 
the  less  capable  had  been  refusing  to  aid  the  poor;  so  rn 
Albany  one  good  woman  who  helped  the  poor  free  of 
charge  was  appointed  along  with  one  other  to  have  a 
monopoly  save  in  emergency.^^  Births  were  announced 
by  hanging  pincushions  on  the  door-knockers.  These 
cushions  were  generally  handsome  ones  and  handed  on 
as  heirlooms.  As  soon  as  the  mother  was  strong  enough 
there  was  a  grand  reception  to  women  friends. 

The  sources  from  which  we  may  learn  of  the  life  of 
children  in  colonial  New  York  are  meager  tho  chil- 
dren were  an  important  factor  in  colonial  calculations 
and  life.  In  the  plan  for  the  colonization  of  New 
Netherlands  we  read: 

Permission  should  be  obtained  from  the  magistrates  of  some 
province  and  cities,  to  take  from  the  almshouses  or  orphan 
asylums  300  @  400  boys  and  girls  of  10,  12,  to  15  years  of  age 
with  their  consent,  however.  .  .  It  must  be,  further,  de- 
clared that  said  children  shall  not  remain  bound  to  their  mas- 
ters for  a  longer  term  than  6  or  7  years,  unless  being  girls,  they 
come,  meanwhile,  to  marry,  in  which  event  they  should  have 
the  option  of  hiring  again  with  their  masters  or  mistresses,  or 
of  remaining  wholly  at  liberty  and  of  settling  there,  on  condi- 
tion that  they  be  allowed  so  much  land  as  the  director  shall 
consider  it  proper  each  should  have  for  the  support  of  [a  fam- 
ily] free  from  all  rents  and  exemptions  for  the  term  of  10  years 
after  entering  on  such  land. 

In  Stuyvesant's  time  several  cargoes  of  children  from 
the  Dutch  almshouses  were  sent  to  America  to  enter 

^^  Earle.     Colonial  Days  in  Old  New  York,  91. 


172       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

service."'  The  official  correspondence  shows  much 
kindiv  thought  and  interest  in  them.  Vice-director 
Al ricks  wrote  to  the  commissioners  of  the  colony  on 
the  Delaware  River: 

The  children  sent  over  from  the  almshouses  have  safely  arrived 
and  were  in  sufficient  request,  so  that  all  are  bound  out  with  one 
and  the  other;  the  oldest  for  two  years,  the  others,  and  the 
major  portion  for  three  years,  and  the  youngest  for  four  years, 
earning  40,  60,  and  80  guilders  during  the  above  period,  and  at 
the  end  of  the  term  will  be  fitted  out  in  the  same  manner  as 
they  are  at  present.  .  .  Please  to  continue  sending  others 
from  time  to  time;  but,  if  possible,  none  ought  to  come  less 
than  fifteen  years  of  age  and  somewhat  strong,  as  little  profit 
is  to  be  expected  here  without  labor;  but  from  people  with 
large  families  or  many  small  children,  little  is  to  be  expected. 
When  the  men  die  they  do  not  leave  a  stiver  behind.  The  pub- 
lic must  provide  the  coffin,  pay  all  the  debts,  and  feed,  or  main- 
tain, those  who  survive. 

In  New  Netherlands  servitude  was  not  considered 
demeaning.  The  servant  was  often  from  a  family  of 
station  equal  to  that  of  the  mistress. ^^  In  case  of  inden- 
ture the  chief  parental  rights  passed  to  the  employer 
but  if  the  children  were  mistreated,  parents  or  guar- 
dians would  take  the  matter  to  court.  If  the  child  ab- 
sented himself  without  leave  from  the  master,  even  to 
visit  home,  the  act  constituted  a  breach  of  the  engage- 
ment. 

There  was  much  binding  out  of  children  and  youth 
in  old  New  York.  Children  of  paupers  were  sold  as 
apprentices.  That  the  ruling  class  wanted  hands  rather 
than  souls  is  suggested  by  the  slowness  to  provide  care 
for  orphans  and  schools  for  youth.  In  a  remonstrance 
by  people  of  New  Netherlands  Of  the  Reason  and 
Cause  of  the  Great  Decay  of  New  Netherlands  we  find 

88  Earle.     Colonial  Days  in  Old  Nenu  York,  84. 

89  Singleton.     Dutch  Netv  York,  143-147. 


Family  Life  and  Problems  in  New  York     173 

complaint  that  there  is  no  asylum  for  aged  and  orphans. 
And  there  ought  to  be  a  public  school 

So  that  the  youth,  in  so  wild  a  country,  where  there  are  so 
many  dissolute  people,  may,  first  of  all,  be  well  instructed  and 
indoctrinated  not  only  in  reading  and  writing,  but  also  in  the 
knowledge  and  fear  of  the  Lord.  .  .  There  ought  to  be, 
likewise.  Asylums  for  aged  men,  for  orphans,  and  similar  in- 
stitutions. 

The  next  year  the  West  India  Company  directed  that 
the  governor  and  council  should  have  jurisdiction  of 
matters  pertaining  to  minors,  widows,  and  orphans. 
Secretary  Van  Tienhoven  wrote  in  answer  to  the  Re- 
monstrance : 

'Tis  also  denied  and  cannot  be  proved,  that  any  of  the  inhabit- 
ants of  New  Netherlands  have,  either  voluntarily  nor  when 
requested,  contributed  or  given  anything  for  the  building  of  an 
asylum  for  orphans,  or  for  the  aged.  .  .  If  the  people  re- 
quire institutions  as  above  stated,  they  must  contribute  towards 
them  as  is  the  custom  in  this  country. 

New  Netherlands  was  no  more  than  other  colonies 
in  the  interest  of  the  general  welfare.  It  is  of  interest 
to  note  the  assertion  that  the  slave  children  of  the 
negroes  emancipated  by  the  company  in  return  for  long 
service  were  "treated  the  same  as  Christians."  Colonial 
days  witnessed  the  practice  of  binding  children,  with- 
out parent's  consent  into  a  servitude  that  made  them  the 
cattle  of  their  owners.  Such  was  the  fate  of  the  Pala- 
tines. Whether  the  Dutch  had  in  mind  any  such  prac- 
tices when  they  explained  the  case  of  the  negro  children 
is  hard  to  say.  Perhaps  such  rigors  belong  exclusively 
to  the  degenerate  English  days.  In  at  least  one  of  the 
settlements  nearly  every  Dutch  family  of  any  means 
had  negro  house-servants,  who  were  treated  kindly, 
brought  up  in  the  family  religion,  and  often  as  attached 
to  their  masters  as  sons  or  daughters  were.     When  the 


174       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

negro  child  was  tliree  years  old  it  was  given  to  one  of 
the  children  of  the  family.  This  child  presented  it  a 
coin  and  a  pair  of  shoes  and  thereafter  they  were  mas- 
ter and  servant.  Every  member  of  a  respectable  fam- 
ily was  supposed  to  have  a  personal  servant. 

As  early  as  1585  Holland  had  schools  for  children  of 
all  classes.  The  charter  of  New  Netherlands  patroons, 
1 630- 1 635,  provided  for  education.  In  1642  marriage 
contracts  included  the  promise  "to  bring  up  their  chil- 
dren decently,  according  to  their  ability,  to  keep  them 
at  school,  and  to  let  them  learn  reading,  writing,  and  a 
good  trade."  For  a  while  the  establishment  of  public 
schools  lagged.  Then  came  a  forward  movement  and 
before  the  end  of  Dutch  rule  common  schools  flour- 
ished, supported  by  the  towns  and  state  aid.  Under 
English  rule  these  non-conformist  agencies  were  suf- 
fered to  decline.  A  Church  of  England  school  started 
in  New  York  City  (1704)  did  not  appeal  to  the  Dutch, 
who  clung  to  the  mother  tongue  and  their  own  rude 
schools.  Just  before  the  Revolution  Burnaby  found  in 
New  York  "a  very  handsome  charity  school  for  sixty 
poor  boys  and  girls." 

In  spite  of  artificial  restrictions  and  curtailment  of 
opportunity  new-world  conditions  afforded  opportuni- 
ties for  children  to  rise  above  their  parents'  social  level. 
Lieutenant-governor  Colden  wrote  in  1765  here  "the 
most  opulent  families,  in  our  own  memory  have  risen 
from  the  lowest  rank  of  the  people." 

The  tradition  of  paternal  authority  was  as  strong  as 
in  New  England.  Dutch  children  were  respectful  and 
subdued  in  their  manner  toward  their  parents  and  filial 
obedience  was  impressed  by  ministers  and  magistrates. 
In  English  days  came  the  New  England  sternness  of 
law.     But  the  Dutch  were  less  stringent  than  the  New 


Family  Life  and  Problems  in  New  York      175 

Englanders  in  the  matter  of  paternal  sovereignty.  In 
Holland,  as  Bradford  tells  us,  the  "great  licentiousness 
of  youth"  was  one  of  the  things  that  led  to  the  Pilgrim 
migration,  and,  as  Blok,  writing  of  the  middle  years  of 
the  century,  notes,  all  foreign  observers  were  amazed 
at  the  freedom  of  children  and  servants.  In  the  new 
world  the  Dutch  retained  the  old  ways  in  large  meas- 
ure. The  ordinances  of  Stuyvesant'S  and  of  early  Eng- 
lish days  show  that  on  Manhattan  children  were  not 
subject  to  stricter  discipline  than  in  Holland.  Chil- 
dren in  Dutch  New  York  were  not  held  under  such 
stern  restraint  as  among  the  Puritans.  They  were  on 
more  familiar  terms  with  their  parents  and  had  ample 
amusement.  Schoolmasters  complained  of  youthful 
insubordination  and  of  maternal  complicity  in  the  chil- 
dren's mischief;  also  that  boys  were  taken  from  school 
too  soon  in  order  to  learn  an  occupation. 

The  magistrates  found  it  necessary  to  censor  youthful 
sports.     In  New  Orange  in  1673, 

If  any  children  be  caught  in  the  street  playing,  racing,  and 
shouting  previous  to  the  termination  of  the  last  preaching,  the 
officers  of  justice  may  take  their  hat  or  upper  garment,  which 
shall  not  be  restored  to  the  parents  until  they  have  paid  a  fine 
of  two  guilders. 

In  New  Amsterdam  the  boys  plagued  the  patrol  at 
night,  setting  dogs  on  him,  etc.  In  1713  the  Albany 
legislators  passed  this  act: 

Whereas  ye  children  of  ye  sd  city  do  very  unorderly  to  ye 
shame  and  scandall  of  their  parents  ryde  down  ye  hills  in  ye 
streets  of  the  sd  city  with  small  and  great  slees  on  the  lord  day 
and  in  the  week  by  which  many  accidents  may  come,  now  for 
pventing  ye  same  it  is  hereby  published  and  declard  yt  it  shall 
and  may  be  lawful  for  any  constable  in  this  city  or  any  other 
person  or  persons  to  take  any  slee  or  slees  from  all  and  every 
such  boys  and  girls  rydeing  or  offering  to  ryde  down  any  hill 
within  ye  sd  city  and  breake  any  slee  or  slees  in  pieces. 


176       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

In  1728  Albany  children  were  still  pestered  and  fined 
tor  slidini^  down  on  ''sleds,  small  boards,  or  otherwise." 

Mrs.  Grant  tells  of  a  peculiar  usage  in  Albany.  The 
children  were  divided  into  groups,  each  containing  as 
many  boys  as  girls  and  obeying  a  boy  and  a  girl  as 
"heads."  Brothers  and  sisters  of  different  ages  be- 
longed to  difTferent  groups.  The  function  of  these  com- 
panies was  social  amusement.  Each  child  had  the  priv- 
ilege of  entertaining  his  group  on  his  birthday  and  one 
other  day.  The  parents  went  away  and  left  them  un- 
der the  eye  of  some  old  servant.  Good  things  to  eat 
were  abundant  and  the  children  amused  themselves  as 
they  pleased.  Albany  seems  to  have  been  unique 
among  the  towns  in  this  grant  of  freedom. 

The  Dutch  did  not  recognize  the  rights  of  primo- 
geniture and  daughters  inherited  equally  with  sons. 
Says  Irving:     Around  the  fire 

The  whole  family,  old  and  young,  master  and  servant,  black  and 
white  .  .  .  enjoyed  a  community  of  privilege.  [But  at 
tea-parties]  the  young  ladies  seated  themselves  demurely  in  their 
rush  bottom  chairs  and  knit  their  own  woolen  stockings;  nor 
ever  opened  their  lips  except  to  say  "yah  Mynheer"  or  "yah 
yah  Vrow"  .  .  .  behaving  in  all  things  like  decent  well- 
educated  damsels. 

Chatteldom  of  women  still  prevailed  in  spite  of 
Dutch  liberalism.  The  old  Dutch  wills  seem  distrust- 
ful of  a  widow  with  regard  to  second  marriage.  Usu- 
ally, in  this  colony,  attempts  were  made  to  restrain 
wives  by  wills  ordering  forfeiture  of  property  in  case  of 
remarriage.  Nearly  all  the  wills  are  more  favorable 
to  the  children  than  to  the  wife.  Restraints  placed  by 
wills  on  remarriage  were  commonly  in  behalf  of  chil- 
dren of  the  first  marriage.  Even  in  a  joint  will  one 
husband  enjoined  loss  of  property  if  his  wife  married 
again.     Perhaps  he  had  reason  for  this  precaution  as 


Family  Life  and  Problems  in  New  York      177 

she  had  had  three  husbands,  a  Dane,  a  Frieslander,  and 
a  German.  His  first  wife  had  had  four.  John  Bur- 
rows in  a  will  of  1678  expressed  the  general  feeling  of 
husbands :  "If  my  wife  marry  again,  then  her  husband 
must  provide  for  her  as  I  have."  One  old  Dutchman 
who  died  in  1726  left  his  estate  to  his  wife  with  the 
proviso  that 

If  she  happen  to  marry  again,  then  I  geff  her  nothing  of  my 
estate.  .  .  But  my  wife  can  be  master  of  all  by  bringing  up 
to  good  learning  my  two  children.  But  if  she  come  to  marry 
again,  then  her  husband  can  take  her  away  from  the  farm. 

In  1674  a  woman  of  Hempstead  represented  that  her 
deceased  husband  had  made  over  his  entire  estate  to 
children  by  a  former  marriage  and  that  these  left  noth- 
ing for  her  necessary  support.  In  response  to  her  re- 
quest for  relief  it  was  ordered  "That  the  Magistrates 
of  the  town  of  Hempstead  be  recommended  strictly  to 
examine  .  .  .  and  on  finding  it  founded,  to  extend 
good  right  and  justice  to  her."  Thus  the  living  of 
widows  was  safeguarded.  But  for  some  strange  reason 
a  hundred  years  later  a  bill  providing  for  inheritance 
by  posthumous  children  was  held  up  by  Governor 
Tryon. 

A  strange  feature  of  the  Dutch  law  of  inheritance, 
established  in  New  York,  was  that  a  widow's  own  prop- 
erty was  liable  for  her  husband's  debts  (tho  she  could 
escape  liability  by  renouncing  her  dower).  Perhaps 
this  fact  is  a  mark  of  the  great  equalization  of  men  and 
women,  the  wife  being  assigned  burdens  as  well  as 
privileges. 

The  settlements  in  New  Netherlands  and  early  New 
York  seem  to  have  had  a  reasonable  share  of  domestic 
troubles  but  not  many  cases  occurred  of  absolute  di- 
vorce or  even  of  permanent  separation.    There  was  a 


ijS       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

system  of  friendly  arbitration  and  the  kindly  paternal- 
ism of  the  Dutch  magistrates  tended  to  ward  ofif  serious 
issues.  In  1665  a  difference  was  patched  up  between 
a  New  Amsterdammer,  Lantsman,  and  his  wife.  A 
curious  feature  of  the  case  is  that  while  he  was  so 
anxious  to  keep  his  wife  he  had  been  tardy  in  marrying 
her.  His  only  excuse  for  not  appearing  on  the  ap- 
pointed day  was  that  his  clothes  were  not  ready.  One 
woman  asked  a  court  order  for  her  husband  to  vacate 
her  home  with  a  view  to  final  separation.  The  arbi- 
trators decided  that  no  legal  steps  should  be  taken  but 
that  the  two  should  "comport  themselves  as  they  ought, 
in  order  that  they  win  back  each  other's  affections,  leav- 
ing each  other  in  meanwhile  unmolested." 

A  most  interesting  case  showing  the  reluctance  to 
sanction  final  separation  developed  in  1665  and  ran  for 
years.  L.  Pos  tried  to  secure  a  separation  for  his 
daughter  on  the  ground  of  insufferable  treatment,  stat- 
ing that  it  was  their  third  appearance  in  court.  The 
husband  denied  that  he  had  treated  her  improperly  and 
blamed  the  trouble  on  his  wife's  father,  who  claimed 
that  the  husband  had  promised  each  time  amendment 
but  never  fulfilled  his  promise.  The  council  postponed 
decision,  "and  meanwhile  their  worships  shall  author- 
ize some  honorable  and  fitting  person  to  reconcile  if 
possible,  the  parties  to  love  and  friendship."  The  quar- 
rel was  referred  to  two  ministers  for  reconciliation.  If 
either  husband  or  wife  would  not  give  in  "then  pro- 
ceedings may  be  expected  according  to  the  style  and 
custom  of  law  as  an  example  to  other  evil  housekeep- 
ers." The  wife's  parents  would  not  listen  to  the  min- 
isters, the  husband  claimed  and  requested  the  court  to 
order  his  wife  to  return  to  him  "as  he  could  not  any 
longer  live  without  his  wife,  promising  again  to  live 


Family  Life  and  Problems  in  Neiv  York     179 

with  her  as  an  honest  man  ought  to  do;"  but  she  refused 
to  go  with  him.  The  council  considered  the  parents 
the  chief  cause  of  the  trouble,  and  ordered  them  not  to 
detain  her  over  fourteen  days  within  which  time  the 
pair  were  to  be  reconciled,  or  make  joint  application 
again.  If  any  more  complaints  were  made  against  the 
husband,  he  was  to  be  delivered  over  for  punishment. 
Later  it  was  reported  that  the  wife  still  held  off;  also 
that  her  father  was  entertaining  her  contrary  to  order. 
The  jury  decided  that  she  should  return  to  her  husband. 

In  1667  the  father  of  the  woman  complained  that  his 
son-in-law  had  severely  beaten  his  wife  contrary  to 
promise.  He  asked  leave  to  take  his  daughter  under 
his  protection.  The  court  ordered  the  husband  to  give 
security  for  good  behavior  and  the  father  was  allowed 
to  keep  his  daughter  under  his  care  until  further  order. 
Later  the  sheriff  complained  against  the  man  for  wife- 
beating.  It  was  ordered  that  if  they  again  agreed  to 
separation  the  court  would  permit  it,  the  husband  to 
pay  four  guilders  weekly  to  his  wife  for  the  main- 
tenance of  the  children.  He  wished,  however,  to  live 
with  her  again,  stating  that  she  was  inclined  thereto, 
and  he  promised  to  be  more  considerate. 

In  1669  complaint  was  again  made  of  his  bad  treat- 
ment of  his  wife  "so  that  the  neighbors  suffer  great  dis- 
turbance by  the  noise  and  uproar."  The  court  ordered 
him  to  behave  himself  properly.  In  1671  complaints 
arose  anew.  The  court,  in  hope  of  amendment,  once 
more  pardoned  the  man,  for  the  last  time,  warning  him 
to  let  his  wife  be  unmolested,  that  if  another  complaint 
came,  he  was  to  be  banished.  In  1673  the  husband  pe- 
titioned that  his  wife  be  ordered  to  live  again  with  him 
or  else  that  a  divorce  be  granted.  "Petitioner  is  noti- 
fied to  conduct  himself  in  future     ...     so  civilly, 


l8o       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 


peaceably,  and  friendly  toward  his  wife,  that  by  his 
good  behavior  his  wife  may  be  induced  to  dwell  again 
with  him  as  she  ought."  Thus  the  case  had  dragged 
out  eight  years. 

In  1 68 1,  there  was  trouble  in  Fort  Orange  about  the 
preachers  daughter  Anneke  who  refused  to  go  to  New 
York  to  her  husband.  The  man,  however,  promised  to 
treat  her  rightly,  and  to  support  the  family  duly;  so 
they  were  reconciled,  "and  for  better  assurance  of  his 
real  intention  and  good  resolution  to  observe  the  same, 
he  requests  that  two  good  men  be  named  to  oversee  his 
conduct  .  .  .  subjecting  himself  willingly  to  the 
rule  and  censure  of  the  sd.  men."  She  agreed  to  con- 
duct herself  well  and  to  be  a  true  wife  and  asked  that 
bygones  be  bygones.  The  appointment  of  "two  good 
men"  as  arbitrators  or  supervisors  of  conduct  in  such 
cases  was  a  means  of  obviating  the  necessity  for  settle- 
ment in  open  court  and  helps  to  explain  why  family 
troubles  of  a  violent  sort  were  relatively  inconspicuous 
or  rare  among  the  Dutch.  Even  the  complaint  of  a 
man  whose  father-in-law  refused  to  give  him  what  he 
had  promised  was  referred  by  the  council  to  arbitration. 

Loving  parents,  as  we  have  noted,  could  not  unduly 
shelter  their  daughter  if  she  left  her  husband.  In  1697 
a  certain  man  petitioned  that  his  wife  be  "ordyred  to  go 
and  live  with  him,  where  he  thinks  convenient."  The 
magistrates  promptly  notified  her  father  that  he  was 
"discharged  to  shelter  her  in  his  home  or  elsewhere, 
upon  penalty  as  he  will  answer  at  his  perill."  She  re- 
turned to  her  husband.  Such  episodes  show  how 
largely  the  conception  of  the  wife  as  a  chattel  lingered 
even  amid  the  liberality  of  this  colony.  The  husband 
was  entitled  to  a  court  order  for  the  return  of  his  wife, 
as  if  she  were  a  thing  rather  than  a  person.    The  court 


Family  Life  and  Problems  in  New  York     i8i 

had  a  strong  bias  toward  the  husband's  side  in  such 
cases. 

In  regard  to  divorce  the  middle  colonies  were  much 
nearer  to  the  extreme  conservatism  of  the  South  than  to 
the  broad  and  liberal  policy  of  New  England.^"  The 
civil  courts  possessed  in  New  Netherlands  "full  power 
to  dissolve  the  nuptial  bond."  As  early  as  1655  John 
Hicks  by  reason  of  his  wife's  adultery  obtained  a  divorce 
with  leave  to  remarry.  In  1659  Nicholas  Vellhuyzen 
was  called  to  account  for  turning  his  wife  out  of  doors 
and  was  asked  why  he  would  not  live  with  her.  He 
answered  that  he  had  not  done  as  charged  but  had  given 
her  a  blow  because  she  had  taken  his  money  that  he  had 
laid  in  his  chest;  and  that  she  had  removed  her  bed  and 
goods  while  he  was  away.  The  wife  denied  having 
taken  the  money.  He  said  that  "she  gave  her  child 
money  to  buy  one  thing  or  another  to  eat,  as  the  child 
would  not  eat  of  what  was  cooked  and  served  up  to 
table."  He  wished  separation,  and  agreed  to  maintain 
the  child  that  was  to  be  born.  The  wife  declared  he 
struck  her  with  the  tongs  in  the  presence  of  Thomas 
Wandel  and  that  burgher  Jones  was  by  when  he  said 
"Bride  for  the  Devil !"  and  "Get  out  the  house."  Nich- 
olas was  asked  whether  he  could  not  resolve  to  live 
again  in  love  with  her,  but  was  not  so  disposed.  The 
court  decided  that  he  should  supply  her  with  certain 
goods  according  to  his  offer  and  further  disposition  was 
made  for  maintenance  of  her  and  her  child. 

The  same  year  Nicasius  de  Sille  requested  divorce 
on  account  of  his  wife's  unbecoming  and  careless  life, 
wasting  property  without  his  knowledge,  and  her  pub- 
lic habitual  drunkenness.  Eleven  years  later  all  efforts 
to  reconcile  Mr.  Sille  and  his  wife  had  failed  and  the 

80  Howard.     History  of  Matrimonial  Institutions,  vol.  ii,  376  ff. 


82       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 


commissioners  saw  no  hope  of  reconciling  them.  The 
commission  feared  that  even  should  they  agree  to  live 
together,  to  which  he  seemed  more  inclined  than  she, 
it  would  not  last  long.  The  matter  was  finally  settled 
by  paying  the  bills  and  dividing  the  property  equally 
between  them. 

In  1664  a  woman  was  released  from  her  husband  on 
the  ground  of  bigamy.  A  couple  was  divorced  in  Al- 
bany in  1670  "because  strife  and  difference  hath  arisen 
between  them."  Daniel  Denton  was  divorced  from  his 
wife,  and  she  was  allowed  to  remarry,  under  the  new 
provincial  divorce  law,  in  1672.  A  few  other  cases 
occur  from  1670  to  1672.  In  1674  under  the  restored 
Dutch  regime 

Catrina  Lane,  requesting  by  petition,  letters  of  divorce  and 
separation  from  her  husband,  Daniel  Lane,  as  her  said  husband 
has  been  accused  of,  and  arrested  for  having  committed  and 
perpetrated  incest  with  his  own  daughter,  and  without  clearing 
himself  thereof,  hath  broken  jail  and  absconded;  which  being 
taken  into  consideration  by  the  Governor-general  and  the  coun- 
cil of  New  Netherland,  they  have  ordered  as  follows:  In  case 
Daniel  Lane  ....  do  not  present  himself  in  court  within 
the  space  of  six  months  from  the  date  hereof  and  purge  him- 
self of  the  crime  of  incest  with  which  he  is  accused,  letters  of 
divorce  shall  be  granted  to  the  petitioner. 

The  same  year,  "Abigail  Mersenjer,  the  deserted  wife 
of  Richard  Darlin,  requesting  by  petition  an  act  of 
divorce  .  .  .  with  permission  to  remarry,  on  ac- 
count that  her  husband,  according  to  his  own  acknowl- 
edgement, hath  broken  the  marriage  ties  by  committing 
adultery,  and  .  .  .  has  absconded  .  .  .  ordered" 
that  the  case  be  postponed  six  months.  If  the  man  in 
that  time  did  not  come  and  clear  himself  the  petitioner 
had  the  right  to  prosecute  her  suit.     It  should  be  noted 


Family  Life  and  Problems  in  New  York     183 

that  the  population  of  the  province  at  this  time  was  only 
about  seven  thousand. 

Chancellor  Kent  says:  "For  more  than  one  hundred 
years  preceding  the  Revolution  no  divorce  took  place 
in  the  colony  of  New  York"  and  the  only  way  to  dis- 
solve marriage  was  by  special  act  of  the  legislature. 
In  1773,  royal  instructions  were  issued  as  follows: 

We  have  thought  fit  ...  to  disallow  certain  laws  passed 
in  some  of  our  colonies  ...  in  America  .  .  .  for  di- 
vorsing  persons  who  have  been  legally  joined  together  in  holy 
marriage.  .  .  It  is  our  expressed  will  .  .  .  that  you 
do  not  upon  any  pretense  whatever  give  your  assent  to  any  bill 
for  the  divorce  of  persons  joined  together  in  holy  matrimony. 

Thus  the  intruding  feudal  spirit  of  the  English  church 
and  the  English  monarchy  seem  to  have  checked  the 
freedom  that  tended  to  assimilate  New  York  to  New 
England  in  the  matter  of  divorce. 

Tho  on  the  whole  the  New  York  family  does  not 
appear  basally  different  from  that  of  New  England,  the 
reader  must  have  noted  the  liberalizing  influence  of 
bourgeois  Holland  as  contrasted  with  the  sharper  lines 
in  English  life  where  Tory  feudalism  and  bourgeois 
radicalism  by  their  feud  injected  extremism  into  af- 
fairs. The  more  genial  spirit  of  Dutch  Protestantism 
as  contrasted  with  the  harsh  lines  of  British  Calvinism 
appears  to  the  advantage  of  women  and  children.  If 
one  were  to  trace  this  contrast  back,  the  source  could 
doubtless  be  found  in  the  narrowness  of  Dutch  terri- 
tories, which  insured  the  early  preponderance  of  com- 
mercialism and  the  feebleness  of  landlordism,  as  a  po- 
litical power.  In  addition  to  the  resulting  placidity  of 
Dutch  life,  the  better  soil  and  less  rigorous  climate  of 
the  Hudson  Valley  contributed  to  make  life  smoother 
and  more  genial  in  New  York  than  in  New  England. 


X.    COLONIAL  NEW  JERSEY  AND 
DELAWARE 

In  New  Jersey  the  great  mass  of  the  people  were 
Scotch  Presbyterians  and  New  England  Congregation- 
alists,  so  that  family  laws  give  marked  evidence  of 
Puritan  influence.  Circumstances,  however,  encour- 
aged liberality  and  New  Jersey  matrimonial  institu- 
tions developed  along  the  broader  lines  of  New  York. 

Tho  neither  Calvinist  nor  Quaker  regarded  marriage 
as  a  divine  sacrament  yet  both  insisted  that  so  impor- 
tant a  civil  contract  should  not  be  lightly  entered  and 
that  the  record  should  be  carefully  preserved.  An 
East  Jersey  legislative  act  of  1668  directed  that  "no 
person  or  persons,  son,  daughter,  maid,  or  servant" 
should  be  married  without  consent  of  parents  or  mas- 
ters. Banns  had  to  be  published.  Ministers,  justices, 
etc.  were  authorized  to  perform  the  ceremony.  The 
Quakers  wanted  a  liberal  law.  The  "Constitutions"  of 
1683  rnade  concession  to  Quaker  conscience  by  provid- 
ing that  all  marriages  not  forbidden  in  scripture  should 
be  counted  lawful  when  solemnized  before  credible 
witnesses  by  taking  one  another  as  husband  and  wife,  a 
certificate  being  properly  registered.  Others  than  Qua- 
kers claimed  to  be  exempt  from  prescribed  forms.  An 
act  of  1693  imposed  a  penalty  of  ten  pounds  upon  min- 
isters and  justices  who  joined  parties  without  publica- 
tion of  banns  or  governor's  license. 

By  far  the  most  important  statute  regulating  mar- 
riages in  New  Jersey  was  one  of  March,  1719,  which 
stood  unchanged  for  over  eighty  years.     It  was  due  to 


i86       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

the  fact  that  ''young  persons  have  been  .  .  .  en- 
ticed, inveigled,  led  away  and  clandestinely  married" 
to  the  ruin  of  the  parties  and  sorrow  of  parents  and  rel- 
atives. The  act  provided  that  no  person  under  the  age 
of  rvventy-one  should  be  married  without  the  written 
consent  of  parents  or  guardians.  Heavy  penalties  were 
fixed  for  non-observance  of  the  act.  These  penalties 
restrained  men  from  taking  away  young  girls,  a  prac- 
tice which,  owing  to  the  proximity  of  the  Hudson  and 
the  Delaware,  had  early  become  common. 

It  w^as  a  Friends'  rule  to  marry  in  meeting;  i.e.^  the 
union  of  a  Quaker  with  an  outsider  was  forbidden  to 
the  extent  of  religious  and  social  ostracism.  West  Jer- 
sey, owing  to  the  taking  up  of  large  tracts,  the  consolida- 
tion of  interests  through  the  intermarriage  of  Friends, 
and  the  general  observance  of  primogeniture,  passed 
into  the  control  of  comparatively  few  families. 

In  1668  East  Jersey  decreed  divorce,  whipping,  or 
banishment  as  the  penalty  for  adultery.  In  1683  adul- 
tery was  specified  as  disqualification  for  membership  in 
the  Great  Council.  In  1682  in  one  of  the  Jerseys  a 
man  and  woman,  paramours,  were  ordered  "whipd  on 
their  naked  bodies,"  the  man  to  receive  thirty  stripes 
and  the  woman  to  receive  thirty-five  and  to  be  sent 
home;  he  was  to  be  kept  in  jail  one  day  after  she  left 
and  to  pay  costs. 

It  is  not  certain  whether  divorces  were  actually 
granted  in  New  Jersey.  If  they  were,  it  must  have 
been  by  the  authority  of  the  legislature  or  of  the  gov- 
ernor. West  Jersey,  largely  Quaker,  had  small  need 
of  legislation.  The  courts  there  sought  to  unite  the 
couple  at  variance  rather  than  to  effect  a  permanent 
separation.  Some  time  before  1694  Thomas  Peaches 
and  Mary  his  wife  had  agreed  upon  separation.    Quak- 


New  Jersey  and  Delaware  187 

er  justices  summoned  them  into  court  and  asked  if  they 
were  not  willing  to  live  together.  Both  agreed,  Thom- 
as stipulating  that  Mary  ''will  acknowledge  shee  hath 
scandalized  him  wrongfully."  She  consents  "but  saith 
shee  will  not  owne  that  she  hath  told  lies  of  him  to  her 
knowledge."  This  answer  brought  things  to  a  stand- 
still 

But  after  some  good  admonitions  from  the  bench,  they  both 
promise  they  will  forget  and  never  mention  what  unkind  speech- 
es or  actions  they  have  formerly  passed  between  them  or  con- 
cerning each  other.  .  .  Hee  .  .  .  p'mises  shee  behav- 
ing herself,  with  tenderness  and  love  to  him,  hee  will  remain 
as  a  loveing  and  a  carefull  husband  to  her  and  make  ye  best 
p'vision  for  her  and  ye  child  that  hee  can. 

In  East  Jersey  the  right  of  complaining  against  a 
child  that  smote  or  cursed  father  or  mother  belonged  to 
both  parents  and  the  prescribed  penalty  was  death. 
Among  the  Friends  in  Jersey  many  sons  of  wealthy 
plantation  owners  were  indentured  owing  to  an  econom- 
ic aspect  of  their  religious  teachings,  which  was  to  the 
effect  that  every  man  should  have  and  follow  a  trade 
or  other  occupation.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  to 
find  that  bond  servitude  was  no  stigma,  and  under  some 
circumstances  a  bound  boy  or  girl  became  one  of  the 
family,  and  sometimes  redemptioners'  sons  married 
daughters  of  the  former  masters.^^ 

The  education  of  women  was  distinctly  domestic. 
Now  and  then  a  girl  had  to  be  disciplined  because  she 
preferred  to  be  an  independent  old  maid  (which  she 
became  at  twenty-five)  rather  than  marry  at  sixteen  or 
seventeen. ^^  In  newspapers  of  the  middle  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century  we  find  a  letter  now  and  then  in  which 
a  Jersey  farmer  complains  that  the  young  women  go 

^'^  Lee.     New  Jersey,  vol.  i,  201. 
®2—  Idem,  196-198. 


88       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 


after  fashion  and  ease  to  the  neglect  of  butter-making, 
weaving,  spinning,  and  cooking.  Some  even  w^ere  act- 
ually negligent  in  the  matter  of  preparing  with  their 
own  hands  the  sheets,  blankets,  and  spreads  necessary 
to  marriage. 

The  sentiment  was  abroad  that  too  much  education  was  not 
beneficial  for  women,  that  a  knowledge  of  books  weaned  them 
from  the  domestic  circle,  and  that  their  place  was  in  the  kitchen 
caring  for  the  children.  The  selfishness  of  this  view,  and  the 
generally  subordinate  place  occupied  by  women,  according  to 
the  custom  of  the  time,  retarded  any  great  intellectual  develop- 
ment. Only  among  the  society  of  Friends,  were  women  given 
public  position  -  and  then  only  as  approved  ministers.^^ 

In  view  of  such  facts  it  is  a  surprise  to  learn  that  the 
early  New  Jersey  constitution  was  so  carelessly  framed 
as  to  allow  women  to  vote.  The  clause  "all  inhabitants 
of  this  colony  of  full  age"  gave  the  ballot  to  women  ^* 
and  aliens.  Women  were  allowed  to  vote,  or  were  re- 
jected, according  to  the  views  of  the  election  officers. 
Griffith  in  a  tract  published  1799  says  that 

Women,  generally,  are  neither  by  nature,  nor  habit,  nor  educa- 
tion, nor  by  their  necessary  condition  in  society  fitted  to  per- 
form this  duty  with  credit  to  themselves  or  advantage  to  the 
public.  .  .  It  is  perfectly  disgusting  to  witness  the  manner 
in  which  women  are  polled  at  our  elections.  Nothing  can  be  a 
greater  mockery  of  this  invaluable  and  sacred  right  than  to 
suffer  it  to  be  exercised  by  i>ersons  who  do  not  even  pretend  to 
any  judgment  on  the  subject. 

Early  Delaware  wrestled  with  clandestine  and  irreg- 
ular marriage.  A  prominent  Swede  had  an  altercation 
with  the  authorities  on  this  score,  "because,"  says  the 
magistrate,  "I  suspected  him  that  he,  without  being  au- 
thorized, had  arrogated  to  himself  to  qualify  the  priest 
to  marry  a  young  couple  without  the  usual  proclamation 

^^  Lee.     Neijj  Jersey,  vol.  i,  358-359. 

'^^On  woman  suffrage,  see  idem,  vol.  iii,  266-267. 


New  Jersey  and  Delaware  1 89 

and  against  the  will  of  the  parents,  on  which  I  con- 
demned the  priest  in  a  fine  of  fifty  guilders." 

Old  Swede  church  ruled  in  1714  "that  betrothals  and 
marriage  proceed  in  an  orderly  manner  according  to 
the  ordinances  of  our  church."  Also  that  espousals  and 
marriages  are  not  allowable  according  to  church  law 
before  mature  age,  and  not  without  consent  of  parents, 
and  must  be  without  compulsion  or  secrecy,  and  not  be- 
fore being  well  instructed  in  Christian  doctrines. 

William  Beckett,  a  missionary,  wrote  in  1737: 

Our  government  is  under  the  influence  of  the  Quakers.  .  . 
Our  president  has  taken  it  upon  him  to  grant  marriage  licenses 
(and)  contrary  to  former  usage  lodged  them  in  the  hands  of 
laymen  of  his  own  kidney  or  under  his  immediate  influence,  to 
whom  we  are  obliged  to  apply  with  much  ceremony  and  no 
small  charge  to  our  parishioners  to  obtain  a  marriage  license. 

In  1750  the  pastor  of  Old  Swede  tells  that 

A  woman  once  came  to  me  asking  to  wed  her  anew,  or  as  it  is 
termed  here,  wed  her  over  again  with  her  husband,  altho  she 
had  been  living  with  him  for  seven  years.  The  reason  for  this 
was  that  they  were  married  by  a  Catholic  priest,  and  therefore 
the  marriage  was  not  so  lawful,  but  I  dismissed  her  with  a 
severe  reprimand. 

In  1790,  Delaware  abolished  civil  marriage. 

Intermarriage  tended  to  produce  homogeneity  in 
Delaware.  Among  the  Swedes  there  seems  to  have 
been  an  excess  of  women.  At  least  there  were  many 
marriages  of  Swedish  women  with  men  of  other  na- 
tionalities. Thus  the  Swedish  blood  spread  through 
the  old  families  of  Wilmington,  except  (principally) 
the  Quakers,  tho  occasionally  a  Friend  so  far  forgot  the 
faith  as  to  marry  a  Swede.  Such  blending  of  the 
younger  elements  operated  to  allay  antipathies  among 
the  older  people.  In  1693,  thirty-eight  years  after  the 
surrender  of  the  Swedes,  we  find  in  a  census  list  of  their 


I90       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

families  several  of  the  parents  bearing  Dutch  names. 
(Dutchmen,  however,  had  been  in  the  Swedish  enter- 
prise from  the  start.)  By  the  beginning  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century  the  welding  of  Swedes,  Dutch,  and  Eng- 
lish was  under  way.  The  fusion  of  blood  opened  the 
door,  of  course,  to  fusion  of  customs.  Thus,  the  agri- 
cultural population  of  Sweden  had  no  surnames  at  the 
time  of  emigration.''  After  mingling  with  other  na- 
tionalities in  America  they  adopted  the  father's  name  as 
family  name. 

By  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  pastor 
of  Old  Swxde  thought  it  necessary  "to  show  the  Swedish 
wives  of  English  husbands  that  they  must  hereafter  do 
their  duty  if  they  expect  to  remain  members."  In  1759 
some  of  the  congregation  complained  because  their  chil- 
dren married  to  strangers  had  to  pay  as  strangers  for 
burial  places  in  the  churchyard.  It  was  resolved  that 
if  they  retained  membership  they  were  entitled  to  a 
place,  but  not  for  husband  or  children  without  payment. 
Thus  occurred  the  tragedy  so  often  repeated  since -a 
dwindling  handful  in  the  midst  of  engulfing  alien  ways. 

The  Delaw^are  country  presented  at  first  the  usual 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  family  settlement.  In  1659 
Alricks  wrote  to  Holland  regarding  the  settlers  at  New 
Amstel  among  whom  was  a  preponderance  of  women 
and  children.  He  desired  that  "the  women  and  chil- 
dren be  omitted  for  the  present,  as  agriculture  could 
not  be  advanced  without  good  farmers  and  strong  labor- 
ing men."  Even  in  later  days  family  support  was  not 
always  a  simple  problem.  Citizens  of  "the  lower  coun- 
ties" importing  infants  and  lunatics  were  to  assume  re- 
sponsibility for  these  visitors.     The  reverend  Mr.  Ross 

^^  Records  of  Holy  Trinity,  1697-1773,  4. 


New  Jersey  and  Delaware  191 

wrote  in  1708:  "New  Castle  is  a  place  where  every- 
thing is  extraordinary  dear,  and  a  man  that  has  a  family 
can  not  subsist  upon  the  society's  bounty  of  £50  per 
annum."  He  moved  to  Upland  in  the  hope  of  getting 
a  better  living  for  his  family  by  keeping  a  boarding- 
school.  In  such  emergencies  clan  loyalty  was  a  valu- 
able asset.  In  1706,  the  pastor  of  Old  Swede  complains 
that  paucity  of  support  makes  him  an  incumbrance  on 
his  wife's  relatives. 

There  was  a  decided  disposition  to  develop  a  sort  of 
familism  on  an  economic  basis.  Thus  in  the  pew  as- 
signment at  Old  Swede  (1699) 

The  heads  of  families,  and  they  that  have  now  paid  the  first 
cost,  and  have  worked  for  them,  are  to  have  their  room,  and  if 
there  be  room  to  spare  in  a  pew,  or  some  of  the  parents  are  ab- 
sent, the  unmarried  children  may  take  seats,  but  otherwise  take 
the  room  farther  down  in  the  church,  and  the  small  children 
stand  in  the  aisle  in  front  of  their  parents  pews,  and  after  the 
death  of  a  parent,  only  the  children  who  remain  attached  to  the 
home  and  land  which  have  now  contributed  to  the  building, 
but  they  who  have  married  away  must  look  out  for  other  places 
as  opportunity  may  offer. 

This  identification  of  family  with  land  is  akin  to  the 
attempt  to  establish  manorial  estates,  as  for  instance 
Bohemia  Manor.  The  inheritance  of  a  given  name  as 
well  as  surname  comes  in  the  same  category. 

Oftentimes  a  child  of  each  succeeding  generation  has  received 
the  name  of  its  father  or  grandfather,  and  so  it  has  been  handed 
down,  until  many  of  our  citizens  bear  the  same  name  as  their 
first  ancestor,  who  emigrated  here  more  than  200  years  ago.°° 

Delaware  enjoyed  something  of  the  serene  Dutch 
influence  that  tempered  the  life  of  this  middle  group  of 
colonies  and  made  it  more  to  our  modern  liking  than 
the  colder  ways  of  New  England.     The  Dutch  cared 

'"'  Vincent.     History  of  Delaivare,  vol.  i,  460. 


192       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

less  for  education  than  did  the  New  Englanders  but 
they  introduced  comforts  and  amenities  into  life  with- 
out neglecting  family  protection. 

The  Swedes  likewise  gave  due  attention  to  family 
welfare.  The  church  was  very  insistent  on  prompt 
baptism  of  infants.  Thus  a  church  ruling  in  1714  says 
that  parents  should  not,  as  often  happens,  let  their  babes 
remain  at  home  a  whole  month  or  many  months,  yes 
even  half  a  year.  Most  of  the  children  were  baptized 
before  they  were  a  week  old,  many  by  the  third  day, 
and  if  a  child  was  growing  up  unchristened  it  became 
a  matter  of  public  concern.  The  pastor  of  Old  Swede 
kept  a  record  of  baptisms. 

Swedish  women  seem  to  have  enjoyed  something  of 
the  same  eminence  as  was  accorded  to  the  Dutch  vrows. 
Thus  about  1750  the  pastor  of  Old  Swede,  being  under 
necessity  of  raising  money,  wrote: 

I  found  it  best  to  avail  myself  of  some  Sunday  when  .  . 
there  was  a  full  congregation,  to  request  that  all  should  remain 
in  their  seats,  so  that  the  women  folk,  who  in  many  houses  rule 
more  than  the  men,  might  have  opportunity  to  hear  what  was 
presented,  and  thereafter  for  their  part  both  agree  and  direct 
for  the  best. 

That  Delaware  was  not  ungenial  to  prolific  increase 
is  suggested  by  the  following  item: 

Died  in  peace  in  1771,  at  Wilmington,  Delaware,  a  pious,  elder- 
ly matron,  who  had  been  mother  of  16  children,  all  married 
and  comfortable;  68  grandchildren,  166  great-grandchildren, 
and  4  great-great-grandchildren  -  in  all  238  living  offspring 
survived  her.     The  generation  of  the  just  shall  be  blessed. 

With  the  first  body  of  immigrants  from  Amsterdam 
to  New  Amstel,  in  1656,  came  Evert  Pietersen.  Au- 
gust 19,  1657,  ^^  wrote: 

We  arrived  here  at  the  South  River  on  the  25th  of  April  and 
found  twenty  families  there,  mostly  Swedes,  not  more  than  five 


New  Jersey  and  Delaware  193 

or  six  families  belonging  to  our  nation.  .  .  I  already  begin 
to  keep  school  and  have  twenty  five  children,  etc. 

In  the  Dutch  settlements,  as  in  Holland,  education 
reached  the  youth  through  the  church  and  the  clergy- 
man, a  rather  unreliable  route. 

Schools  were  encouraged  by  the  Swedish  govern- 
ment. But  Biork  writes:  "We  hardly  found  here  a 
Swedish  book  but  they  were  so  anxious  for  the  improve- 
ment of  their  children  that  they  lent  them  to  one  an- 
other, so  that  they  can  all  read  tolerably  well."  He 
complained  also  that  the  ministers  were  too  old  and  in- 
firm to  "pay  proper  attention  to  the  education  of  youth." 
After  the  coming  of  the  English  in  1682  it  became  cus- 
tomary for  Swedish  children  first  to  learn  to  read  Eng- 
lish and  then  their  mother  tongue.  The  records  of  Old 
Swede  church  show  interest  in  the  starting  of  school. 
On  one  occasion  the  record  tells  of  the  employment  of 
a  school-master  "and  agree  to  gather  for  him  18  or  20 
children."    In  1700  occurs  this  entry: 

Early  in  May  the  schoolkeeping  in  Boktin  was  discontinued, 
partly  on  account  of  the  above  mentioned  sickness  and  some 
other  causes,  particularly  that  some  inconsiderate  persons  neg- 
lected to  keep  their  children  steadily  at  school,  tho  they  were 
diligently  and  thoroly  taught. 

House  instruction  by  the  pastor  was  the  last  glimmer 
of  Swedish  education. 

Among  the  laws  of  the  Duke  of  York  in  1676  was  one 
to  this  effect: 

The  constable  and  overseers  are  strictly  required  frequently  to 
admonish  the  inhabitants  of  instructing  their  children  and  serv- 
ants, in  matters  of  religion  and  the  lawes  of  the  country,  and 
that  the  parents  and  masters  do  bring  up  their  children  and  ap- 
prentices in  some  honest  lawfuU  calling  labour  or  employment. 
And  if  any  children  or  servants  become  rude,  stuborne,  or  un- 
ruly refusing  to  hearken  to  the  voice  of  their  parents  or  mas- 


194       ^^^  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

tcrs,  the  constables  and  overseers  (where  no  justice  of  the  peace 
shall  happen  to  dweW  within  ten  miles  of  the  said  town  or 
parish)  have  power  upon  the  complaint  of  their  parents  or  mas- 
ters to  call  before  them  such  an  offender  and  to  inflict  such 
corporal  punishment  as  the  merit  of  their  fact  in  their  judgment 
shall  deserve,  not  excepting  ten  stripes,  provided  that  such  chil- 
dren and  servants  be  of  sixteen  years  of  age. 

The  provisions  of  Penn's  frame  of  government  may  be 
found  in  the  following  chapter  on  Pennsylvania. 

Mr.  Ross  in  a  sketch  of  the  church  at  New  Castle  de- 
scribes education  in  1727: 

There  are  some  private  schools  within  my  reputed  district  which 
are  put  very  often  into  the  hands  of  those  who  are  brought  into 
the  country  and  sold  for  servants.  Some  schoolmasters  are 
hired  by  the  year,  by  a  knot  of  families  who,  in  their  turn  enter- 
tain him  monthly  and  the  poor  man  lives  in  their  houses  like 
one  that  begged  an  alms,  more  than  like  a  person  in  credit  and 
authority.  When  a  ship  arrives  in  the  river  it  is  a  common 
expression  among  them  who  stand  in  need  of  an  instructor  for 
their  children  Let  us  go  and  buy  a  Schoolmaster.  The  truth 
is,  the  office  and  character  of  such  a  person  is  generally  very 
mean  and  contemptible  here,  and  it  cannot  be  othervvays  'til  the 
public  takes  the  education  of  children  into  their  mature  con- 
sideration. 

A  letter  by  Beckett,  a  missionary,  in  1728  says: 

There  is  no  public  school  in  all  the  county,  the  general  custom 
being,  for  what  they  call  a  neighborhood  (which  lies  sometimes 
four  or  five  miles  distant)  to  hire  a  person  ...  to  teach 
their  children  to  read  and  write  English,  for  whose  accommoda- 
tion they  meet  together  at  a  place  agreed  upon,  cut  down  .  .  . 
trees  and  build  a  log  house  in  a  few  hours  .  .  .  whither 
they  send  their  children  every  day  during  the  term  for  it  ought 
to  be  observed  by  way  of  commendation  of  the  American  plant- 
ters  nowadays,  that  whatever  pains  or  charge  it  may  cost,  they 
seldom  omit  to  have  their  children  instructed  in  reading  and 
writing  the  English  tongue. 

The  Presbyterians  came  in  the  years  from  171 8  to 


New  Jersey  and  Delaware  195 

1740.  The  Shorter  Catechism  was  learned  in  their 
homes  and  recited  at  school.  Psalms  were  the  lulla- 
bies. On  Sabbath  parents,  children,  and  servants  went 
through  the  catechism.  Sermons  were  read  and  points 
of  doctrine  compared  with  the  Bible. 

The  reverend  Mr.  Hacket  writes  of  Delaware  in 
1732: 

The  people  .  .  .  frequently  bring  negroe  children  to 
church,  and  after  being  instructed,  their  Masters  become  their 
sureties. 

Education  in  Delaware  was  obviously  very  imperfect. 
Even  late  in  the  eighteenth  century  children  were  ex- 
posed to  the  influence  of  immoral  teachers.     Nor  was 
family  morality  always  high. 
In  1660 

Among  the  Finns  is  a  married  couple  who  live  together  in  con- 
stant strife.  The  wife  receives  daily  a  severe  drubbing,  and  is 
expelled  from  the  house  as  a  dog.  This  treatment  she  suffered 
a  number  of  years;  not  a  word  is  said  in  blame  of  the  wife, 
whereas  he,  on  the  contrary,  is  an  adulterer.  On  all  which  the 
priest,  the  neighbors,  the  sheriff  appeal  to  [an  official]  at  the 
solicitation  of  man  and  wife,  that  a  divorce  might  take  place, 
and  the  small  property  and  stock  be  divided  between  them. 

The  official  asked  for  orders.  This  is  the  first  mention 
of  a  divorce  case  in  Delaware. 

In  1 66 1  the  South  River  folk  were  stirred  by  the  first 
recorded  elopement.  The  wife  of  a  Finnish  priest  ran 
off  with  another  man  and  the  couple  eluded  arrest. 
The  husband  was  indignant  but  not  inconsolable,  for  in 
less  than  a  month  he  applied  for  permission  to  marry  a 
young  girl.  The  answer  was  deferred  till  Stuyvesant 
could  be  heard  from.  Two  months  after  the  bereave- 
ment the  priest  again  asked  permission  to  marry,  as  the 
situation  of  his  family,  he  said,  imperiously  required  it. 
A  month  later  he  received  a  divorce,  and  a  few  weeks 


196       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

after  this  release,  married  himself,  "a  transaction  in  my 
opinion,  under  execution,  entirely  unlawful,"  wrote  the 
local  official  in  quest  of  orders  from  higher  authority. 
The  marriage  was  shortly  declared  void.  Conditions  in 
Delaware  corresponded  to  the  account  of  Maryland  by 
an  Episcopal  rector  (1676)  :  "All  notorious  vices  are 
committed;  so  that  it  is  become  a  Sodom  of  unclean- 
ness,  and  a  pest  house  of  iniquity."" 

Fabritius,  a  Lutheran  minister,  came  to  New  Castle 
in  1 67 1  having  gotten  into  hot  water  in  Albany  for  not 
baptizing  several  children  on  application,  etc.  Soon 
he  was  suspended  from  the  ministry  for  one  year  for 
having  performed  a  marriage  "without  having  any  law- 
ful authority  thereto,  and  without  publication  of  banns." 
His  wife  remained  at  Albany,  and  he  managed  to  keep 
in  trouble  at  both  places. 

Tienhoven,  at  one  time  secretary  of  the  colony  on 
South  River,  seduced  in  Holland  on  promise  of  mar- 
riage a  girl  of  Amsterdam.     She  came  and  found  him 
already  married  and  took  her  case  into  court.    In  1709 
Thomas  Crawford,  a  missionary,  wrote  of  uncleanness: 
[Mr.  Mfddleton,  a  vile  man,  sent  me  word  of  the  disappear- 
ance of  Elizabeth  Watson.     Some]  believed  it  was  done  by  a 
fellow  that  was  in  the  house  with  her  whom  all  say  she  ad- 
mitted to  her  embraces.     But  what  I  have  to  say  of  her  un- 
cleanness, that  on  earth  I  can  get  proved,  and  other  villany  to 
obtain  her  lust,  and  gratify  her  unclean  desires  as  also  a  certifi- 
cate of  her  former  husband's  death  whom  she  trapanned  and 
sent  to  sea,  and  then  removed  under  the  name  of  a  maid  to  a 
strange  place,   and   things  worse  than   that  I  shall  not  men- 
tion.    .     .     With  all  the  last  money  I  sent  Elizabeth  Watson, 
she  laid  it  out  to  pay  the  boarding  of  a  gentleman's  children, 
to  whom  she  had  been  valet  de  chambre  many  a  night  till  all 

^^  Holcomb.  Sketch  of  Early  Ecclesiastical  Affairs  in  Ne^  Castle,  Dela- 
ware, and  History  of  Immanuel  Church,  29. 


New  Jersey  and  Delaware  197 

the  world  took  notice  of  her  base  carriage  with  him,  and  then 
when  she  had  lost  her  fame  she  came  after  me. 

The  records  of  the  Welsh  Tract  Baptist  Meeting  con- 
tain numerous  records  of  church  censorship  of  sex  mor- 
als. In  1714  Evan  Edmunds  and  Catherine  Edwards 
were  excommunicated  for  conducting  themselves  scan- 
dalously and  unseemly  and  withstanding  the  advice  of 
the  church  not  to  keep  company  till  they  cleared  them- 
selves of  the  scandal.  In  1717  Richard  Lewis  was 
turned  out  for  keeping  unseemly  company  with  his 
neighbor's  wife  and  withstanding  the  counsel  of  the 
church.  Mary  Rees  was  "dismembered"  in  1723  for 
withstanding  the  advice  of  the  church  and  marrying  a 
man  against  the  warning  of  the  brethren  and  of  her 
father.  Besides  there  was  no  proof  of  her  former  hus- 
band's death.  The  sentence  was  to  stand  so  long  as  both 
parties  were  alive.  In  the  previous  cases  the  sentences 
were  really  only  suspension  until  satisfaction  should  be 
given.  Thomas  Jones  and  wife  were  excommunicated 
for  improper  conduct  with  regard  to  the  obligation  of 
the  marriage  vow,  etc.,  and  for  disregard  of  the  call  of 
the  church.  Numerous  others  cases  of  excommunica- 
tion, etc.,  occured  for  such  causes  as  bastardy,  bigamy, 
disorderly  marriage -without  advising  with  the  church 
and  without  parental  consent- fornication,  excessive 
drinking  to  the  hurt  of  the  culprit's  family,  adultery. 
These  cases,  however,  are  spread  over  half  a  century, 
namely  from  1736-1786.  The  church  undertook  also  to 
adjust  differences  between  husband  and  wife. 

In  the  eighteenth  century  the  Delaware  assembly 
made  sodomy,  buggery,  and  rape  capital  offences. 
Death  without  benefit  of  clergy  was  fixed  as  the  penalty 
for  the  killing  of  bastards. 


198       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

Perhaps  the  most  outstanding  fact  in  the  history  of 
the  New  Jersey  and  Delaware  colonial  families  is  the 
unsettling  influence  of  heterogeneity  of  population. 
This  factor  is  visible  in  the  liberalization  of  the  New 
Jersey  marriage  law,  in  irregularities  of  marriage  in 
Delaware,  in  family  division  due  to  cross-marriages, 
and  in  the  variety  of  petty  groups,  each  censoring  the 
affairs  of  its  members. 


XI.    THE  FAMILY  IN  COLONIAL 
PENNSYLVANIA 

Pennsylvania  was  cosmopolitan,  hence  tended  to 
breadth  and  tolerance.  Here  we  must  study  varied  in- 
fluences, particularly  Quaker,  German,  and  Scotch- 
Irish. 

In  the  early  days  the  Quaker  element  was  dominant. 
They  always  held  marriage  and  the  family  in  great 
esteem.  The  records  of  the  colonial  Pennsylvania 
Quaker  meetings  are  full  of  instances  of  discipline  ad- 
ministered to  young  people  for  fornication.  Penn 
claims  that  wedlock  should  grow  only  out  of  reciprocal 
inclination.  "Never  marry  but  for  love,"  he  says,  "but 
see  that  thou  lovest  what  is  lovely." 

Tho  holding,  like  the  Puritans,  that  the  regulation  of 
marriage  belongs  to  the  civil  power,  the  Quakers,"^  as  a 
sect,  imposed  restrictions  of  their  own.  The  Meeting 
exercised  constant  surveillance  over  family  discipline 
and  private  life.  As  it  was  impossible  properly  to  dis- 
cipline the  family  of  a  mixed  marriage  a  Quaker  mar- 
rying one  of  another  sect  was  dismissed  from  the  society 
even  tho  their  numbers  were  thus  greatly  depleted.  If 
a  Friend  sought  a  wife  elsewhere  than  in  his  home  com- 
munity he  carried  a  letter  from  the  Meeting. 

In  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  perplexing 
questions  were  rife  as  to  forbidden  degrees,  marriage  by 
justice  of  the  peace,  mixed  marriages,  young  couples' 
keeping  company  without  parental  consent.     Adverse 

88  See  Index  for  Quakers  in  England. 


200       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

decisions  were  rendered  on  every  question.  A  tendency 
to  recognize  the  validity  of  common  law  marriages  ap- 
pears. The  following  are  illustrations  of  the  problems 
that  confronted  the  Friends  in  Pennsylvania:  many 
young  Friends,  impatient  of  the  slow  and  troublesome 
process  of  passing  meeting,  would  hasten  off  to  the 
priest  or  to  a  magistrate  and  be  married  without  delay 
or  formality.  Refusal  to  confess  fault  meant  expulsion. 
At  Warrington,  1767,  Sarah  Delap  acknowledged 
"keeping  company  with  a  young  man  not  of  our  society 
and  attempting  marriage  with  him  by  a  priest  to  the 
great  grief  of  my  tender  parents."    She  was  reinstated. 

While  Quaker  discipline  was,  on  the  whole,  rather 
Puritanlike  the  home  life  was  charming.  The  families 
were  often  large.  The  Friends  were  especially  appre- 
ciative of  the  aged.  Hospitality  was  a  genial  virtue. 
In  American  Quaker  homes  there  were  spare  rooms, 
and  Quaker  visitors,  no  matter  how  numerous,  never 
went  to  a  hotel. 

The  Diary  of  Christopher  Marshall,  a  well-to-do 
Quaker  of  Philadelphia,  kept  during  the  year  1778,  de- 
scribes his  wife's  activities:  "From  early  .  .  . 
morning  till  late  at  night  she  is  constantly  employed  in 
the  affairs  of  the  family,  which  for  four  months  has 
been  very  large.  .  .  It  is  a  constant  resort  of  comers 
and  goers."  Moreover  she  did  the  baking  and  cooking; 
made  twenty  large  cheeses  from  one  cow;  was  gar- 
dener and  butter-maker;  kept  the  house  clean;  cut  and 
dried  apples;  made  cider  without  tools  "for  the  con- 
stant drink  of  the  family;"  attended  to  the  washing  and 
ironing.  She  also  sewed,  knit,  etc.  "I  think  she  hath  not 
been  above  four  times  since  her  residence  here  to  visit 
her  neighbors."  In  sickness  furthermore  he  stated  that 
she  was  a  faithful  nurse  day  and  night.     She  was  ever 


The  Family  in  Pennsylvania  201 

ready  to  supply  poor  neighbors  with  milk,  always  had 
cream  to  spare  for  her  dairy.  She  rose  at  daybreak, 
tho  aged,  and  went  to  the  wharves  to  buy  wood.  Her 
hearty  old  husband  records  complacently  that  the  horse 
would  have  died  had  not  the  energetic  woman  skir- 
mished for  hay  in  the  barren  city.  Besides  she  endured 
Poll,  a  pestiferous  bound  girl.  Such  was  the  life  of  the 
Revolutionary  housewife.  Yet  the  Quakers  went  far 
toward  a  recognition  of  woman's  equality. 

Penn's  frame  of  government  contains  provision  for 
education  in  the  New  World: 

The  governor  and  provincial  council  shall  erect  and  order 
all  publick  schools  and  encourage  and  reward  the  authors  of 
useful  sciences  and  laudable  inventions.  .  .  And  [there 
shall  be]  a  committee  of  manners,  education  and  arts,  that  all 
wicked  and  scandalous  living  may  be  prevented,  and  that  youth 
may  be  successively  trained  up  in  virtue  and  useful  knowledge 
and  arts.  .  .  All  children  within  the  province  of  the  age  of 
twelve  years  shall  be  taught  some  useful  trade  or  skill,  to  the 
end  none  may  be  idle,  but  the  poor  may  work  to  live,  and  the 
rich,  if  they  become  poor,  may  not  want. 

The  first  General  Assembly  (Chester,  1682)  accepted 
the  provisions.  The  Assembly  of  the  next  year  ordered 
that  "persons  having  charge  of  children  should  have 
them  instructed  in  reading  and  writing  before  they  were 
twelve  years  of  age,  or  pay  a  fine  of  five  pounds  for 
every  sound  child."  Children  were  to  be  taught  "some 
useful  trade  or  skill."  Force,  if  necessary,  was  to  be 
used  to  execute  the  law.  The  insistence  on  industrial 
training  recalls  Puritan  devotion  to  child  labor. 

Penn  did  away  with  the  old  laws  that  gave  to  the  state 
the  estates  of  murderers  and  suicides.  He  also  abol- 
ished primogeniture.  But  a  huge  estate  became  vested 
in  the  Penn  family  thus  producing  a  strange  contrast  to 
his  liberalism.    This  estate  was  the  source  of  great  mis- 


202       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

chief.  Penn's  heirs,  or  proprietaries,  made  claim  to  all 
the  soil  within  the  bounds  of  the  original  charter.  In 
1779  the  Pennsylvania  legislature  denounced  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  Penn  family  had  perverted  and  abused 
the  terms  of  Penn's  charter.  Thus  the  opportunity  to 
ground  a  family  aristocracy  in  landlordism  reversed  the 
characteristic  trend  of  Quakerism  toward  "democratic" 
capitalism. 

From  Maine  to  Georgia  the  Germans  were  hinter- 
landers  occupying  the  best  farm  acreage.  They  were 
numerous  in  the  middle  states  and  have  left  their  im- 
print on  that  section.  In  the  fatherland  marriage  was 
held  to  be  of  divine  appointment.  Some  of  the  immi- 
grants did,  indeed,  form  communities  with  sex  segrega- 
tion but  the  bulk  of  the  German  immigrants  settled  by 
families. 

The  Germans  are  a  domestic  people.  The  middle- 
class  German  is  fond  of  home  life  and  joins  with  his 
family  in  the  pursuit  of  simple  pleasures.  The  Ger- 
mans gave  to  America  a  domestic  type  of  woman.  To 
this  fact  can  be  attributed  much  of  the  vigor  of  the  pop- 
ulation and  the  solid  quality  that  comes  from  home 
training.  They  laid  great  emphasis  on  the  household 
arts,  excelling  in  thoroness  and  efficiency.  A  writer  of 
the  eighteenth  century  says : 

When  a  young  man  asks  the  consent  of  his  father  to  marry  a 
girl  of  his  choice,  the  latter  does  not  so  much  inquire  whether 
she  be  rich  or  poor,  but  whether  she  is  industrious  and  acquaint- 
ed with  the  duties  of  a  good  housewife. ^^ 

The  pioneer,  of  course,  did  not  care  for  an  intellectual 
wife  but  preferred  a  woman  of  sound  industry.  The 
industry  of  the  German  women  was  indeed  marvelous. 
The  men  loved  their  homes;  they  were  home-makers - 

^9  In  Kuhns,  German  and  Siviss  Settlements  of  Pennsylvania,  loi. 


The  Family  in  Pennsylvania  203 

industrious  and  frugal.  The  children  were  trained  to 
industry.  The  Pennsylvania  Germans  had  very  few 
slaves.  Often  their  farms  descended  from  father  to 
son  for  more  than  a  hundred  years,  in  many  cases  with- 
out a  mortgage. 

Pastors'  baptismal  records  and  the  entries  in  family 
Bibles  show  that  Pennsylvania  Germans  often  had  nu- 
merous children.  The  pioneer  did  not  murmur  when 
his  family  grew.  Penn  found  the  kindred  race,  the 
Swedes,  on  the  Delaware  likewise  fertile. 

They  have  fine  children,  and  almost  every  house  full:  rare  to 

find  one  of  them  without  three  or  four  boys  and  as  many  girls; 

some  six,  seven,  and  eight  sons.     And  I  must  do  them  that  right, 

I  see  few  young  men  more  sober  and  laborious. 

Rush  writes  in  1789: 

The  favorable  influence  of  agriculture,  as  conducted  by  the  Ger- 
mans ...  is  manifested  by  the  joy  they  express  upon  the 
birth  of  a  child.  No  dread  of  poverty  or  distrust  of  Provi- 
dence, from  an  increasing  family,  depresses  the  spirits  of  these 
industrious  and  frugal  people.  Upon  the  birth  of  a  son,  they 
exult  in  the  gift  of  a  plowman  or  a  waggoner;  and  upon  the 
birth  of  a  daughter  they  rejoice  in  the  addition  of  another  spin- 
ster or  milkmaid  to  the  family. 

Home  discipline  was  rigid.  When  necessary  the  rod 
was  used.  Children  received  diligent  home-training. 
They  were  taught  early  in  life  to  work.  The  practice 
of  binding  children  out  to  service  so  that  they  might 
learn  trades  or  because  the  home  family  was  so  large  as 
to  render  their  services  superfluous  was  followed  quite 
generally  in  old  Germantown.  The  Pennsylvania  Ger- 
mans thought  it  no  disgrace  for  a  daughter  to  work  in 
another  family,  where  she  might  add  to  her  knowledge 
of  good  housekeeping.  Servants  ate  with  the  family  on 
ordinary  occasions  and  were  well  cared  for.  The  serv- 
ant and  the  master  and   mistress   frequently  were   to 


204       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 


each  other  as  child  and  parents.  Parents  loved  their 
home  and  their  children  and  made  the  home  attractive 
with  proper  games  and  privileges.  Children  also  loved 
home  and  parents  and  other  members  of  the  family. 
Part  of  the  home,  sometimes  a  separate  dwelling,  was 
provided  for  aged  parents  or  grandparents.  Often  an 
unmarried  daughter  held  it  her  duty  to  remain  with  the 
aged  parents  to  the  end  of  their  days. 

The  old  church  records  are  honest  in  mentioning  the 
illemtimate  birth  of  children.  But  the  smallness  of  this 
unfortunate  number  as  compared  with  the  number  born 
in  wedlock  shows  the  esteem  of  matrimony.  Adultery 
was  a  grievous  sin  to  the  pioneers.  Divorces  were 
viewed  with  abhorrence.  Parents  counselled  their  chil- 
dren to  live  in  purity  and  gave  good  advice  regarding 
the  choice  of  husband  or  wife. 

Many  German  immigrants  met  with  unfortunate  ex- 
periences. A  letter  dated  March  i6,  1684,  says:  "If 
any  one  come  here  in  this  land  at  his  own  expense,  and 
reaches  here  in  good  health,  he  will  be  rich  enough, 
especially  if  he  can  bring  his  family  or  some  man  serv- 
ants, because  servants  are  here  dear."  For  the  man 
that  could  not  come  at  his  own  expense,  the  outlook  was 
not  so  good.  "It  often  happens  that  whole  families, 
husband,  wife,  and  children  are  separated  by  being  sold 
to  different  purchasers."  Ships  brought  hordes  of  Ger- 
mans to  America.  Children  seldom  survived  the  jour- 
ney. "Many  a  time  parents  are  compelled  to  see  their 
children  die  of  hunger,  thirst,  or  sickness,  and  then  see 
them  cast  into  the  water.  Few  women  in  confinement 
escaped  with  their  lives;  many  a  mother  is  cast  into  the 
water  with  her  child."  When  the  ships  reached  Phila- 
delphia unmarried  people  of  both  sexes  found  ready 
sale.     Old  married  people,  widows,   and  the  feeble. 


The  Family  in  Pennsylvania  205 

were  a  drug  on  the  market  unless  they  had  children  to 
assume  the  debts  of  the  parents,  thereby  extending  their 
own  period  of  servitude.  "Parents  must  sell  and  trade 
away  their  children  like  so  many  cattle."  Thus  the  ex- 
ploiting element  that  dominated  here  as  in  all  the  colo- 
nies subordinated  moral  considerations,  as  always,  to 
profits.^°° 

An  important  continental  sect,  the  Moravians,  were 
not  unlike  the  Quakers.  They  had  their  system  of  cen- 
sorship and  administration  of  discipline  over  families. 
Tho  tending  to  communal  life  (for  they  were  successors 
to  the  revolutionary  Taborite  communists  of  Bohemia) , 
they  did  not  believe  in  celibacy.  Marriage  they  ele- 
vated into  a  very  sacred  duty.  All  souls  were  in  es- 
sence feminine  and  the  male  was  a  mere  temporary 
function  for  the  probation  period  on  earth.'"'  It  might 
be  supposed  that  this  feministic  theory  would  give  su- 
premacy to  woman,  but  not  so.  Man's  duties  were  ex- 
alted, clear,  and  positive.  As  Christ  was  the  true  hus- 
band of  each  woman  so  the  man  was  his  representative 
and  the  wife's  Savior.  Thus  marriage  was  highly 
idealized  and,  naturally,  subject  to  very  strict  regula- 
tion. The  church  often  acted  as  match-maker,  helping 
in  the  choice  of  a  wife  and  conveying  the  proposal. 
Divorce  is  said  to  have  been  practically  unknown  among 
them. 

Their  communal  tendency  took  shape  at  Bethlehem, 
where  the  land  belonged  to  the  church,  which  took  into 
its  treasury  the  fruits  of  the  joint  labor  of  the  com- 
munity and  gave  to  each  member  the  necessaries  of  life, 
instruction  for  his  children,  and  care  in  sickness  and 

^o°On  slavery  of  whites  in  the  colonies  see  Oneal,  If'orkers  in  American 
History,  chapters  iii  and  iv.  A  rather  amateurish  work,  but,  to  the  ordinary 
reader,   indispensable. 

101  On  the  sect  see  Fisher,  The  Making  of  Pennsylvania,  138. 


2o6       The  Afnerican  Family -Colonial  Period 

old  age.     Separate  quarters  were  provided  for  bach- 
elors as  also  for  widows  and  for  single  women. 

The  cohesion  of  the  Pennsylvania  Moravians  out- 
lasted the  colonial  period.  A  historian  in  1819  writes 
thus  of  them : 

The  young  man  who  has  an  inclination  to  marry  makes  appli- 
cation to  the  priest,  who  presents  a  young  woman  designated 
by  the  superintendent  as  the  next  in  rotation  for  marriage. 
Having  left  the  parties  together  for  an  hour,  the  priest  returns, 
and  if  they  mutually  consent  to  live  together,  they  are  married 
the  next  day;  if  otherwise,  each  is  put  at  the  bottom  of  the  list, 
containing  perhaps  sixty  or  seventy  names,  and  on  the  part  of 
the  girl  there  is  no  chance  of  marriage,  unless  the  same  young 
man  should  again  feel  disposed  for  matrimony.  When  united, 
a  neat  habitation,  with  a  pleasant  garden,  is  provided,  and  their 
children,  at  the  age  of  six,  are  placed  in  the  seminary.  If  eith- 
er of  the  parents  die,  the  other  returns  to  the  apartment  of  the 
single  people.^"^ 

The  Dunkers,  also,  are  worthy  of  special  mention. 
The  Brethren  church  has  distinctly  stood  for  the  exalta- 
tion of  the  home  and  family  life.  Among  the  early 
settlers  of  this  sect  was  found  a  high  type  of  Christian 
home.  The  typical  home  was  a  sanctuary  for  the 
preaching  of  the  word:  for  forty-seven  years  the  Breth- 
ren had  no  church  nor  meeting-house.  The  Dunkers 
developed  sex-segregation.  In  18 19  we  are  told  that 
"the  women  live  separate  from  the  men,  and  never  asso- 
ciate except  for  the  purpose  of  public  worship  or  public 
business."  ^°^ 

The  Schwenkfelders  were  also  noteworthy.  Among 
them  mixed  marriages  were  discouraged.  During  the 
period  before  marriage  the  minister  met  the  young  peo- 
ple  several  times  and  gave  them  instruction  in  Christian 

i<'2  Mackenzie.    Historical    Topographical   and   Descriptive   Vieiv   of   the 
United  States,  379. 
103  _  i^gjn^  3go. 


The  Family  in  Pennsylvania  207 

doctrine  and  especially  in  the  duties  of  married  life. 
Entrance  into  the  marriage  relation  was  a  most  sacred 
step.  The  bride  had,  perhaps  for  years,  been  getting 
things  ready  in  preparation  for  her  duties  as  wife  and 
mistress  of  a  home.  Children  were  objects  of  pious 
solicitude.  They  were  not  allowed  to  frequent  places  of 
public  resort. 

In  1 720- 1 740  thousands  of  Ulster  Scots  came  to 
America  and  peopled  the  hills  and  valleys  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania frontier.  Clannish  by  nature  and  tradition 
they  held  together  in  small  communities  of  forty  or 
more  families,  a  majority  of  them  akin  by  blood  or  by 
marriage.  The  Scotch-Irish  are  comparable  to  the 
Puritans  but  coming  from  a  less  central  people  were  of 
freer  and  less  sombre  type.  Their  matrimonial  customs 
were  simple  as  befits  a  frontier  people.  Men  seldom 
went  far  afield  for  wives.  In  the  preliminaries  of  a 
marriage  there  was  great  deliberation  and  thoroness. 
The  girl's  outfit  had  been  prepared  from  her  birth.  On 
two  successive  Sabbaths  before  the  wedding  after  the 
benediction  one  of  the  clerks  would  announce  the  banns. 
Marriage  took  place  at  the  bride's  home.  On  the  fol- 
lowing Sabbath  they  made  their  appearance  in  state  at 
church.  The  race  was  marked  by  family  loyalty.  The 
women  led  hard  lives  but  were  patient  and  submissive. 
(The  person  familiar  with  the  back  country  of  western 
Pennsylvania  to-day  will  note  apparent  survivals  of  the 
last  two  primitive  features.)  Divorce  was  practically 
unknown. 

Pennsylvania  presented  the  usual  pioneer  hardships, 
in  juxtaposition  with  city  luxury.  For  instance  John 
and  Rebecca  Head  arrived  in  Philadelphia  early  in  the 
eighteenth  century  with  a  flock  of  children  and  various 
household  utensils.    In  default  of  other  means  of  trans- 


2o8       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 


portation  they  put  the  two  younger  girls  in  a  tub  and 
each  parent  took  a  handle.  The  older  children,  aged 
three  and  four,  walked  in  front  carrying  as  much  as 
they  could.  A  surprising  counter  item  is  found  in  the 
correspondence  of  Mrs.  John  Adams: 

Philadelphia  must  be  an  infertile  soil  or  it  would  not  produce 
so  many  unfruitful  women.  I  always  conceive  of  these  persons 
as  wanting  one  addition  to  their  happiness;  but  in  these  perilous 
times,  I  know  not  whether  it  ought  to  be  considered  as  an  in- 
felicity. 

Children  in  Pennsylvania  schools  were  sometimes  the 
victims  of  "drunken,  dirty,  careless,  and  cruel  teach- 
ers." Slight  attempt  was  made  by  the  English  in  early 
Pennsylvania  toward  popular  education  outside  the  cap- 
ital. Penn  Charter  School,  opened  at  Philadelphia  in 
1698,  was  for  fifty  years  the  only  public  school  in  the 
province.  The  Germans  and  Moravians  had  some  good 
private  schools  in  the  larger  towns  but  educational  facil- 
ities in  the  country  were  usually  wretched  or  lacking. 
A  Pennsylvania  pedagog  of  1765  advertising  for  pupils 
urges  young  ladies  not  to  be  discouraged  on  account  of 
age  or  through  fear  of  not  obtaining  a  spouse,  as  he  has 
had  "the  honour  to  give  the  finishing  stroke  in  educa- 
tion to  several  of  the  reputed  fine  accomplished  ladies 
in  New  York,  some  of  which  were  married  within  two, 
three,  and  four  years  afterwards."  ^°* 

Pennsylvania  had  notable  women.  In  the  days  of 
settlement  one  woman  took  up  a  tract  of  twenty-five 
hundred  acres  in  what  is  now  Lancaster  County.  There 
are  instances  of  prominent  business  women  in  the  col- 
ony. Benjamin  Franklin  both  respected  and  admired 
his  wife.  But  the  subordination  of  woman  was  still 
manifest.     One  old  law  in  Pennsylvania  (1690)   pro- 

10*  Wharton.     Colonial  Days  and  Dames,  126. 


The  Family  in  Pennsylvania  209 

vided  that  a  widow  could  not  marry  till  a  year  after  her 
husband's  death. 

Pennsylvania  was  not  staidly  Puritan.  In  1741  a 
Grand  Jury  notes  that  whites  in  markets,  etc.,  strive  "to 
excell  in  all  lewdness  and  obsenity  which  must  produce 
a  generall  corruption  of  such  youth  (apprentices,  etc.) 
if  not  timely  remedied."  Stories  of  scandal  in  high 
society  can  be  found  in  histories  of  all  old  Pennsyl- 
vania towns."^"^  Sarah  Eve  writes  of  unrestrained  kiss- 
ing of  girls  by  men  in  Philadelphia  (1722).  In  Phila- 
delphia the  groom's  friends  called  for  several  days  after 
a  wedding  to  drink  punch. 

Quakers  and  Moravians  did  not  legislate  about  di- 
vorce and  the  Scotch-Irish  had  no  use  for  it.  The 
Great  Law  of  1682  for  Pennsylvania  permits  divorce 
for  the  scriptural  cause.  A  penalty  was  prescribed  for 
adultery. 

[One  convicted]  shall  for  the  first  offence  be  publicly  whipped 
and  suffer  one  whole  year's  imprisonment  in  the  house  of  cor- 
rection at  hard  labor,  to  the  behoof  of  the  publick  and  longer  if 
the  magistrate  see  meet.     And  both  he  and  the  woman  shall  be 
liable  to  a  Bill  of  Divorcement,  if  required  by  the  grieved  hus- 
band or  wife  within   the  said  term  of  one  whole  year  after 
conviction. 
For  a  second  ofifence  the  penalty  is  "imprisonment  in 
manner  aforesaid  during  life."     Gordon  in  a  summary 
of  the  laws  of  the  colony  says  that  these  "made  no  gen- 
eral provision  for  the  dissolution  of  marriage;  and  di- 
vorce from  bed  and  board  was  allowed  in  case  of  big- 
amy only,  on  request  of  first  wife  or  husband,  made  in 
one  year  after  conviction."'""     Legislative  authority, 
however,  granted  absolute  divorces.     But  there  is  no 

^05  Giddings.     Natural  History  of  American  Morals,  34. 

i"**  Howard.     History  of  Matrimonial  Institutions,  vol.  ii,  386-387. 


2IO       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 


evidence  to  show  that  divorces  either  absolute  or  partial 
were  at  all  common  in  Pennsylvania. 

Servitude  and  slavery  marred  morality  in  this  as  in 
the  other  colonies.'"'  Reference  has  already  been  made 
to  the  dissolution  of  families  by  white  servitude.  The 
pathos  of  such  a  system  was  brought  home  to  a  Phila- 
delphia gentleman  who  wanted  an  old  couple  for  house 
servants.  After  purchasing  an  old  couple  and  their 
daughter  he  found  that  he  had  bought  his  own  father, 
mother,  and  sister.'"^  If  members  of  a  family  died  on 
the  ocean  the  survivors  were  held  responsible. 

Servants  were  not  allowed  to  marry  without  master's 
consent  and  a  severe  penalty  was  attached  to  this  in- 
fringement of  property  rights.  Women  having  ille- 
gitimate children  (and  thereby,  of  course,  impairing 
the  value  of  their  services)  were  punished  by  a  pro- 
longation of  their  term  of  bondage. 

Miscegenation  doubtless  took  place  from  the  first. 
In  1677  a  white  servant  was  indicted  for  intercourse 
with  a  negro.  In  1698  the  Chester  County  Court  as- 
serted the  principle  that  mingling  of  the  races  was  to  be 
tabooed.     Court  records  run  as  follows: 

For  that  hee  .  .  .  contrary  to  the  lawes  of  the  govern- 
ment and  contrary  to  his  masters  consent  hath  .  .  .  got 
with  child  a  certain  molato  wooman  called  swart  Anna. 

David  Lewis  Constable  of  Haverford  returned  a  negro  man 
of  his  and  a  white  woman  for  haveing  a  baster  childe  . 
the  negro  said  she  intised  him  and  promised  him  to  marry  him; 
she  being  examined,  confest  the  same  .  .  .  the  court  or- 
dered that  she  shall  receive  twenty-one  lashes  on  her  beare 
backe  .  .  .  and  the  court  ordered  the  negroe  man  never  to 
meddle  with  any  white  woman  more  uppon  paine  of  his  life. 

A  law  of  1700,  for  negroes,  provided  that  buggery  or 

1""^  See  Turner,  History  of  Slavery  in  Pennsylvania. 
108  Oneal.     Workers  in  American  History,  67. 


The  Family  in  Pennsylvania  211 

rape  of  a  white  woman  was  to  incur  the  penalty  of 
death.  The  penalty  for  attempted  rape  was  to  be  cas- 
tration. 

In  1722  a  woman  was  punished  for  complicity  in  a 
clandestine  marriage  of  a  white  woman  to  a  negro. 
Shortly  after  a  petition  came  up  to  the  Assembly  at- 
tacking the  wicked  and  scandalous  practice  of  negroes' 
cohabiting  with  white  people.  The  Assembly  proceed- 
ed to  the  framing  of  a  law.  The  law  of  1725-1726  pro- 
vided that  no  negro  was  to  be  married  to  any  white  per- 
son on  any  pretense  whatever.  A  white  person  violat- 
ing this  law  was  to  forfeit  thirty  pounds  or  be  sold  as  a 
servant  for  a  period  not  over  seven  years.  A  clergy- 
man abetting  such  a  union  was  to  be  fined  one  hundred 
pounds.  The  law  was  not  able  to  check  cohabitation 
tho  there  is  almost  no  record  of  marriages  of  slaves  with 
white  people. 

Advertisements  for  runaway  slaves  indicate  that  mu- 
lattoes  were  very  numerous.  The  Chester  County  slave 
register  for  1780  shows  that  they  made  up  twenty  per 
cent  of  the  slave  population  in  that  locality.  It  would 
seem  that  it  was  not,  in  general,  the  masters  that  were 
guilty  of  illicit  intercourse  but  rather  servants,  outcasts, 
and  the  lower  class  of  whites'"^  The  records  of  1766 
contain  an  instance  of  a  white  woman  prostitute  to  ne- 
groes and  those  of  the  following  decade  give  evidence 
as  to  mulatto  bastards  by  pauper  white  women.  One 
case  was  noted  in  171 5  where  the  guilty  white  man  was 
probably  not  a  servant.  Benjamin  Franklin  was  openly 
accused  of  having  colored  mistresses."" 

Children  of  negro  slaves  became,  of  course,  the  mas- 
ter's property.     Owners  considered  the  rearing  of  slave 

^^"  Turner.     History  of  Slavery  in  Pennsylvania,  31. 
110—  Idem. 


212       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

children  a  burden.  One  writer  affirmed  that  in  Penn- 
sylvania "negros  just  born  are  considered  an  incum- 
brance only,  and  if  humanity  did  not  forbid  it,  they 
would  be  instantly  given  away"  (1780).  A  likely 
wench  was  sold  because  of  her  fecundity.  In  1732  the 
Philadelphia  Court  of  Common  Pleas  ordered  a  man  to 
take  back  a  negress  that  he  had  sold  that  proved  to 
be  with  child.  He  was  to  return  the  price  and  pay  the 
money  spent  "for  phisic  and  attendance  of  the  said 
negroe  in  her  miserable  condition."  In  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Gazette  occurs  an  advertisement  of  an  exemplary 
young  negress  for  sale.  '^She  has  ...  a  fine, 
hearty  young  child,  not  quite  a  year  old,  which  is  the 
only  reason  for  selling  her,  because  her  mistress  is  very 
sickly,  and  cant  bear  the  trouble  of  it."  The  child  of  a 
free  mother  and  a  slave  father  was  a  servant  for  a  term 
of  years. 

Slavery  in  Pennsylvania  was  mild.  The  chattels  gen- 
erally lived  in  the  master's  house.  Some  had  cabins  for 
their  families.  Negroes  were  often  allowed  to  visit 
members  of  their  families  living  in  other  households. 
Something  was  done  toward  the  maintenance  of  slave 
family  life.  Penn's  conscientious  attempt  in  1700  to 
secure  a  law  for  the  regulation  of  slave  marriage  was 
defeated.  One  writer  attributes  this  result  to  the  wan- 
ing of  Quaker  influence,  the  lower  tone  of  the  later  in- 
flux, and  temporary  hostility  to  the  executive.  But  the 
universal  incompatibility  of  property  rights  in  men 
with  stable  marriage  is  sufficient  to  account  for  the  vote. 

Slaves  came  under  the  law  forbidding  servants  to 
marry  without  the  master's  consent.  It  is  said  that 
many  masters  permitted  their  human  cattle  to  marry  as 
they  pleased  save  that  the  owner  would  try  to  prevent 
marriage  off  the  place.     (In  conflict  with  the  alleged 


The  Family  in  Pennsylvania  213 

unprofitableness  of  slave  raising,  Kalm  adds  that  it  was 
considered  an  advantage  to  own  negro  women,  since 
otherwise  the  offspring  of  one's  negroes  belonged  to  an- 
other master.)  The  marriage  ceremony  was  frequently 
performed  as  for  white  people.  The  records  of  Christ 
Church  show  many  such  instances.  Among  the  Friends 
there  are  very  few  records  of  such  marriages.  But 
Joshua  Brown's  Journal  kept  during  the  year  1774  con- 
tains this  item: 

I  rode  to  Philadelphia  .  .  .  and  lodged  that  night  at  Wm. 
Browns  and  fifth  day  of  the  Moth  I  spent  in  town  and  was  at 
a  negro  wedding  in  the  eving  when  several  per  mett  and  had  a 
setting  with  them,  and  they  took  each  other  and  the  love  of  God 
seemd  to  be  extended  to  them. 

A  negro  marriage  in  Friends'  fashion  is  recorded  for 
West  Chester.  Mittleberger  said:  "The  blacks  are 
likewise  married  in  the  English  fashion."  But  Benezet 
wrote:  "They  are  suffered,  with  impunity,  to  cohabit 
together,  without  being  married  and  to  part,  when  sol- 
emnly engaged  to  one  another  as  man  and  wife."  It 
would  be  absurd  to  attribute  to  the  negroes  all  the  blame 
for  family  laxity.  But  in  Pennsylvania  there  was  no 
active  trade  in  negroes  and  when  they  were  bought  or 
sold  there  was  some  attempt  to  keep  families  together. 

It  is  said  that  negro  children  were  taught  submission 
to  their  parents  and  that  these  were  suffered  to  train, 
cherish,  and  chasten  them.  Many  slaves  were  treated 
like  members  of  the  master's  family:  nursed  and  cared 
for  in  sickness,  provided  for  when  past  work,  and  in 
some  instances  remembered  in  the  master's  will.  Often 
members  of  a  negro  family  bought  freedom  for  other 
members.^" 

Opposition  to  slavery  took  into  account  its  influence 

"1  Turner.   History   of  Slavery   in   Pennsylvariia,  46,   51,   62. 


214       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

on  family  relations.  The  Quakers  of  Germantown  in 
1688  indicted  slavery  as  follows:  "Some  do  commit 
adultery  in  others,  separating  wives  from  their  husbands 
and  giving  them  to  others  .  .  .  and  some  sell  the 
children  of  these  poor  creatures  to  other  men."  In 
1780  an  act  for  gradual  abolition  was  passed.  It  pro- 
vided that  no  child  thereafter  born  in  Pennsylvania 
should  be  a  slave;  but  it  held  in  servitude  till  the  age  of 
twenty-eight  children  born  of  a  slave  mother. 

After  the  passage  of  this  act  some  masters  sent  negro 
children  into  other  states  there  to  be  sold.  Others  sent 
their  pregnant  women  into  another  state  that  the  chil- 
dren might  not  be  free.  An  act  of  1788  provided  that 
births  of  children  of  slaves  should  be  registered;  that 
husband  and  wife  were  not  to  be  separated  more  than 
ten  miles  without  their  consent;  that  pregnant  females 
were  not  to  be  sent  out  of  the  state  pending  delivery. 
In  1816  it  was  decided  that  in  certain  cases  if  a  fugitive 
slave  bore  a  child  in  Pennsylvania  the  child  was  free. 


XII.     THE  FAMILY  MOTIVE  IN  SOUTHERN 
COLONIZATION 

In  the  first  settlement  of  Virginia  no  regard  was  • 
given  to  family  and  no  appeal  was  made  to  the  family 
motive.  The  settlement  was  a  camp  rather  than  a 
colony.  The  early  voyagers  did  not  expect  to  tarry 
long  in  the  new  country  and  did  not  bring  their  families 
or  establish  their  homes.  Their  intention  was  to  make 
a  fortune  and  then  return  to  England.  It  is  natural, 
therefore,  that  the  settlement  did  not  thrive.  Byrd 
thinks  it  a  pity  that  the  adventurers  looked  askance  at 
marriage  with  the  Indians.  Intermarriage,  he  thought, 
would  have  been  a  good  means  for  the  conversion  of  the 
natives  and  for  the  reconciliation  of  them  to  the  loss  of 
lands. ^^^  The  natives  were  not  averse  to  such  unions"^ 
but  it  is  to  be  feared  that  the  Indian  damsels  would  not 
have  been  adept  at  scouring  dishes,  darning  hose,  and 
the  like. 

A  Spanish  representative  in  England  wrote  in  1609 
to  Philip  III.  informing  him  that  the  English  were 
about  to  send  a  few  women  to  Virginia.  He  enclosed 
an  advertisement  inviting  men  and  women  of  occupa- 
tion "who  wish  to  go  out  in  the  voyage  for  colonizing 
the  country  with  people."  In  Virginia  they  would 
have  houses,  gardens,  orchards,  food,  and  clothing,  a 
share  of  products,  and  a  share  in  the  division  of  the  land 
for  themselves  and  their  heirs  forever. 

112  Goodwin.     The  Colonial  Cavalier,  45-46. 
^'^^  Letters  from  Virginia,  167. 


2i6       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

A  letter  of  Gabriel  Archer,  on  a  voyage  to  Virginia 
in  1609,  says:  "We  had  twenty  women  and  children." 
A  minute  of  a  letter  of  Philip  III.  to  Don  Caspar  de 
Pereda,  from  Madrid,  February  20,  161 1  indicates  that 
the  Ambassador  in  England  had  written  the  previous 
December  that  ships  with  three  hundred  men  and  a  few 
women  were  to  leave  for  Virginia.  Toward  the  end 
of  May,  161 1  Sir  Thomas  Gates  was  sent  with,  three 
ships  and  three  caravels  containing  in  all  two  hundred 
eighty  men  and  two  hundred  women.  The  minutes  of 
the  meeting  of  the  directors  of  the  Virginia  Company, 
November  3,  1619  record  the  need 

That  a  fitt  hundreth  might  be  sent  of  woemen,  maids  young 
and  vncorrupt  to  make  wives  to  the  inhabitants  and  by  that 
means  to  make  the  men  there  more  settled  and  lesse  moueable 
who  by  defect  thereof  (as  is  credibly  reported)  stay  there  but 
to  get  something  and  then  to  return  for  England,  wch  will  breed 
a  dissolucon,  and  so  an  overthrow  of  the  Plantacon.  These 
woemen  if  they  marry  to  the  publiq  ffarmers,  to  be  transported 
at  the  charges  of  the  company;  if  otherwise,  then  those  that 
takes  them  to  wife  to  pay  the  said  company  their  charges  of 
transportacon,  and  it  was  never  fitter  time  to  send  them  then 
nowe. 

The  "liberals,"  the  business  class,  with  business  sense, 
had  by  this  time  captured  the  corporation;  hence  the 
saner  economic  judgment  displayed.  Sir  Edwin  Sandys 
of  the  company  was  able  to  see  that  the  possibility  of 
business  success  depended  on  making  Virginia  a  country 
of  homes.  It  was  clear  to  him  that  the  best  way  to  make 
it  a  place  of  homes  was  to  provide  wives  for  the  men. 
If  they  had  wives  and  children  depending  on  them  they 
would  work  with  better  cheer  and  not  pine  for  England 
when  they  should  be  giving  all  their  energies  to  the 
work.  With  wife  and  children,  home  in  Virginia 
would  replace  the  English  home  in  the  affections  of  the 


The  Family  Motive  in  Southern  Colonization  217 

emigrants.  He  arranged,  accordingly,  the  plan  of 
sending  out  young  women  as  companions  to  the  Vir- 
ginia adventurers.  Ninety  came  in  the  first  installment. 
They  were  girls  of  good  character,  willing  to  become 
new-world  wives.  The  would-be  husbands  each  had  to  , 
pay  one  hundred  twenty  pounds  of  tobacco  which  was 
the  price  of  the  passage  over  (about  ninety  dollars). 

The  purity  of  the  imported  wives  was  carefully 
guarded.  Two  transgressors  were  deported.  Every 
precaution  was  taken  to  secure  the  happiness  of  the  new 
wives."*     It  was  ordered  that 

In  case  they  cannot  be  presently  married,  we  desire  that  they 
may  be  put  with  several  householders  that  have  wives  until  they 
can  be  supplied  with  husbands.  .  .  We  desire  that  the  mar- 
riages be  free,  according  to  nature  and  we  would  not  have  these 
maids  deceived  and  married  to  servants,  but  only  such  freemen 
or  tenants  as  have  means  to  maintain  them  .  ,  .  not  en- 
forcing them  to  marry  against  their  wills. 

The  results  were  most  happy.  So  kindly  were  the 
maidens  received  that  they  wrote  back  and  induced 
sixty  more  "young,  handsome,  and  chaste"  to  come  over 
for  the  same  purpose.  It  was  in  connection  with  such 
a  shipment  that  the  company  minutes  note  that  if  any 
died  the  charge  was  to  be  added  to  the  rest. 

Regarding  the  girls  shipped  over  as  wives  old  writers 
alleged  that  some  were  seized  by  fraud,  trapanned  in 
England;  that  unprincipled  spirits  "took  up  rich  yeo- 
mans'  daughters  to  serve  his  Majesty  as  breeders  in 
Virginia  unless  they  paid  money  for  their  release."  "° 
This  is  scarcely  probable  so  far  as  the  company's  car- 
goes above  mentioned  are  concerned.  Those  invoiced 
maidens  seem  to  have  had  a  square  deal  and  the  com- 
pany was  not  interested  in  the  prosperity  of  his  Majesty. 

^'*  Cooke.     Virginia,   120-122. 

^^^  Earle.     Colonial  Dames  and  Good<wi<ves,  4. 


2i8       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 


Yet  Bacon  (a  member  of  the  royal  council  for  the  Vir- 
ginia Company)  did  recognize  the  worth  of  such  a  move 
as  the  company  made.  In  his  Essay  on  Plantations 
(seemingly  revised  between  1620  and  1624,  tho  prob- 
ably written  earlier)  he  says:  "When  the  plantation 
grows  to  strength,  then  it  is  time  to  plant  with  women 
as  well  as  with  men,  that  the  plantation  may  spread  into 
generations,  and  not  be  ever  priced  from  without." 

The  scarcity  of  women  naturally  hastened  the  mar- 
riage of  any  that  were  available.  Some  families  in- 
vited female  relatives  from  England.  These,  of  course, 
were  soon  married.  The  company  discriminated  in 
favor  of  married  men.  As  an  incentive  to  marriage 
married  men  were  given  preference  in  the  selection  of 
officers  for  the  colony.  Men  with  families  began  to 
come  out  from  England.  Their  advent  together  with 
the  shipment  of  wives  and  the  previous  abolition  of 
communist  living  served  to  establish  Virginia  as  a  land 
of  homes.  The  colony  became  settled  and  well-ordered. 
The  careless  adventurers  were  metamorphosed  into  re- 
sponsible fathers  of  families  anxious  for  the  prosperity 
of  a  country  that  now  seemed  their  own. 

It  was  not  necessary  to  continue  permanently  the  im- 
portation of  wives.  It  seems  that  a  number  of  women 
of  "the  better  class"  came  to  Virginia  with  their  hus- 
bands between  1617  and  1624.  Immigrants  presently 
sought  marriage  into  the  families  of  the  older  colonists. 
The  English  patrons  encouraged  this  intermarriage  as 
well  as  family  migration  as  means  of  increasing  the  im- 
portance of  the  colony  and  thus  enlarging  dividends. 
Men  of  later  generations  wooed  and  won  their  wives  in 
conventional  fashion.  By  1688  children,  grandchil- 
dren, and  great-grandchildren  called  Virginia  their 
home  and  looked  to  England  as  the  motherland. 


The  Family  Motive  in  Southern  Colonization  219 

The  great  bulk  of  the  population  of  early  Virginia 
was  pure  English.  Almost  always,  persons  of  foreign 
origin  took  partners  of  Virginian  or  English  birth. 
Thus  the  foreign  blood  was  lost.  The  majority  of  the 
Virginia  settlers  were  from  the  humbler  ranks  of  life, 
including  numbers  of  the  stalwart  yeomanry.  Few 
men  of  rank  ever  came  to  the  "wilderness  of  Virginia" 
and  the  planters  were  generally  of  bourgeois  stock. 
Even  cavaliers  were  not  necessarily  of  noble  blood. 
The  leading  families  of  Virginia  had  exactly  the  same 
origin  as  those  of  New  England.  The  Virginia  mid- 
dle class  sprang  from  free  families  of  immigrants  of 
humble  means  and  origin,  which  migration  began  early 
and  continued  through  the  seventeenth  century.  The 
law  allowing  settlers  fifty  acres  of  land  for  each  mem- 
ber of  the  family  was  an  inducement.  Many  men  bare- 
ly able  to  pay  their  way  came.  The  number  of  small 
grants  in  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century  was 
large.  After  the  execution  of  Charles  a  host  of  royal- 
ists sought  shelter  in  America  and  the  immigration  of 
this  class  continued  even  after  the  Restoration.  The  ■ 
influx  of  well-to-do  is  marked  by  a  sudden  rise  in  the 
size  of  land  grants  and  in  the  number  of  slaves."® 

Enthusiasts  in  eugenics  catch  eagerly  at  this  straw. 
For  the  eddies  of  chafif  that  swirled  to  Virginia  were 
considerable.  We  find  the  council  of  Virginia  early 
complaining  that 

It  hurteth  to  suffer  parents  to  disburden  themselves  of  lascivious 
sonnes,  masters  of  bad  servants  and  wives  of  ill  husbands,  and  so 
clogge  the  business  with  such  an  idle  crue,  as  did  thrust  them- 

ii"^  See  Bruce,  Social  Life  of  Virginia  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,  250-251; 
Wertenbaker,  Patrician  and  Plebeian  in  Virginia,  vol.  v,  4-5,  28,  143,  i6o; 
Yonge,  Site  of  Old  "James  Toiune,"  139;  Ross,  Origins  of  the  American 
People,  712-713. 


220       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

selves  in  the  last  voiaj^e,  that  will  rather  starve  for  hunger  than 
lay  their  hands  to  labor/^^ 

In  1618  Bridget  Gray  informed  the  Privy  Council  that 
her  grandson,  John  Throckmorton,  was  in  Newgate  for 
stealing  and  begged  that  he  might  be  delivered  to  Sir 
Thomas  Smith  and  be  deported  beyond  the  seas.  In 
1637  the  collector  of  the  port  of  London  affirmed  that 
''most  of  those  that  go  thither  [to  Virginia]  ordinarily 
have  no  habitation  .  .  .  and  are  better  out  than 
within  the  kingdom.""^  From  the  beginning  of  the 
plantation  in  Virginia,  it  had  been  the  policy  of  the 
company  to  send  thither  poor  children.  For  fifty  years 
indentured  servants  came -from  one  thousand  to  sixteen 
hundred  a  year.  Slum  and  alley  sewage  fertilized  the 
plantations.  Men  sold  dependent  kindred  to  the  col- 
onies. Boys  and  girls  were  spirited  from  English 
streets  for  "the  plantations  can  not  be  maintained  with- 
out a  considerable  number  of  white  servants."  And 
America  was  a  convenient  dump  for  criminals. 

Sponsors  of  Virginia's  aristocracy  console  themselves 
with  the  thought  that  a  large  proportion  of  these  seem- 
ingly "undesirable  citizens"  were  unfortunate  rather 
than  depraved,  and  with  the  belief  that  natural  selec- 
tion eliminated  or  reduced  the  worst  strains.  The  scarc- 
\ty  of  women  "made  it  impossible  for  the  degraded  lab- 
*  orer,  even  tho  he  ultimately  secured  his  freedom,  to 
leave  descendants  to  perpetuate  his  lowly  instincts.""^ 
The  wilder  spirits  took  to  the  woods  where  death-rate 
was  high.  Thus  the  alleged  blue-blood  had  an  easier 
task  in  its  breeding  of  "a  germ  plasm  which  easily  de- 
veloped such  traits  as  good  manners,  high  culture  and 
the  ability  to  lead  in  all  social  affairs -traits  combined 

^^"Ross,  op.  cii.,  712. 

118  — Idem. 

119  Wertenbaker.     Patrician  and  Plebeian  in  Virginia,  176. 


The  Family  Motive  in  Southern  Colonization  221 

in  a  remarkable  degree  in  the  first  families  of  Vir- 
ginia." ^^'^ 

The  dearth  of  careers  in  England,  especially  for 
younger  sons,  contributed  to  the  peopling  of  Virginia 
and  also  of  Maryland.  The  settlers  of  Maryland  were 
for  a  long  time  of  a  sort  very  desirable  in  a  new  colony. 
Able  and  industrious  young  men  whose  purpose  was  to 
work,  to  secure  homesteads,  and  to  rear  families 
strengthened  the  colony.  There  were  also  men  of 
means,  who  came  with  wives  and  children.  The  col- 
ony encouraged  family  migration.  A  man  bringing 
over  his  wife  and  children  was  allowed  one  hundred 
acres  each  for  self  and  wife  and  fifty  for  each  child.  A 
woman  coming  with  children  received  land  for  herself 
and  them.  For  every  woman  servant  brought,  the  mas-  • 
ter  could  claim  sixty  acres. 

There  was  opportunity  in  Maryland.  The  young 
fellow  that  came  penniless  in  1634  n^ight  by  1660  be  a 
prosperous  country  gentleman  surrounded  by  broad 
acres  belonging  to  himself  and  sons,  their  farms  gir- 
dling his,  and  his  family  related  by  marriage  with  the 
neighbors  for  miles  around. 

The  author  of  Leah  and  Rachel  [Virginia  and  Mary- 
land], (1655)  gives  this  advice  to  prospective  immi- 
grants : 

[It  it  better  for  any  one  going  over  free,  but  poor,  to  hire  for 
wages  the  first  year  if  he  strikes  an  honest  home]  where  the 
mistresse  is  noted  for  a  good  housewife,  of  which  there  are  very 
many  (notwithstanding  the  cry  to  the  contrary)  for  by  that 
means  he  will  live  free  of  disbursement,  have  something  to  help 
him  the  next  year  and  be  carefully  looked  to  in  [sickness]. 
Now  for  those  that  carry  over  families  and  estates  with  a  deter- 
mination to  inhabit,  my  advice  is  that  they  neither  sojourn,  for 
that  will  be  chargeable;  nor  on  the  sudden  purchase     .     .     . 

120  Davenport.     Heredity  in  Relation  to  Eugenics,  207. 


222       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

but  that  they  for  the  first  year  hire  a  house  (for  seats  are  al- 
ways to  be  hired)  and  by  that  means  they  will  not  only  find 
content  and  learn  the  worth  and  goodness  of  the  plantation  they 
mean  to  purchase. 

The  Carolina  project  made  direct  appeal  to  the  fam- 
ily motive.     Robert  Home  writing  in  1664  of  the  Cape 
Fear  country  says  that  younger  brothers  can  come  over 
there  and  found  families.     Among  the  privileges  grant- 
ed to  Carolina  settlers  in  1666  were  the  following: 
Every  free  man  and  free  woman,  that  transport  themselves  and 
servants  by  the  25th  of  March     .     .     .     1667,  shall  have  for 
himself,  wife,  children,  and  men-servants,  for  each   lOO  acres 
of  land  for  him  and  his  heirs  forever,  and  for  every  woman  serv- 
ant and  slave,  50  acres  paying  at  most  5^d.  per  acre  per  annum 
in  lieu  of  all  demands,  to  the  lords  proprietors. 

After  1667  in  South  Carolina  the  allotment  to  immi- 
grants was :  to  each  free  person  fifty  acres ;  to  every  man 
servant  and  marriageable  woman  servant  whom  he 
brought,  the  same.  In  1671  an  allowance  of  land  was 
made  for  every  person  in  each  family  settling  on  a  cer- 
tain creek.  Again  there  was  promised  to  every  free- 
man settler  before  March  25,  1672,  one  hundred  acres, 
one  hundred  for  every  man  servant,  seventy  for  a  woman 
servant  or  a  man  under  sixteen,  and  seventy  to  every 
servant  when  his  time  was  up.  Families  in  groups  of 
eight  might  settle  in  such  places  as  they  chose.  Thomas 
Ashe,  clerk  on  the  ship  Richmond,  1682,  wrote: 

His  majesty  to  improve  so  hopeful  a  design  [wine  culture] 
gave  the  French  we  carried  over,  their  passage  free  for  them- 
selves, their  wives,  children,  goods,  and  servants. 

The  moderate  allowances  made  to  real  family  settlers 
were  insufficient  to  suit  would-be  exploiters.  In  1755 
there  came  before  the  king  a  representation  from  Gov- 
ernor Dobbs  of  North  Carolina  to  the  effect  that 
wealthy  settlers  wanted  to  come  but  were  not  satisfied 


The  Family  Motive  in  Southern  Colonization  223 

with  the  one  hundred  acres  for  master  or  mistress  and 
fifty  for  each  child.  It  was  thought  desirable  that  not 
over  six  hundred  forty  acres  should  be  given  to  each 
person  able  to  cultivate  the  same.  Doubtless  this  rec- 
ommendation was  too  meager  to  satisfy  the  prospective 
plutocrats. 

South  Carolina,  in  her  zeal  for  population,  offered 
bounties  that  must  have  been  very  attractive  to  persons 
with  families.  Milligan  in  1763  gave  the  schedule  as 
follows:  For  children  under  two  years,  one  pound; 
two  to  twelve  years,  two  pounds;  persons  over  twelve 
years,  four  pounds.  Royal  land  offers  were  still  in 
force. 

Carolina  drew  a  motley  population -English,  Scotch, 
Scotch-Irish,  German,  Irish,  Swiss,  Huguenot.  All 
these  strains  merged  into  one  in  the  process  of  time. 
The  Huguenots  for  a  time  were  treated  meanly,  doubt- 
less from  envy  of  their  superior  economic  qualities.  In 
South  Carolina  in  1693  ^^ey  were  threatened  with  the 
loss  of  their  estates  at  death  because  they  were  foreign- 
ers.^^^  The  proprietors  reassured  them  on  this  point. 
The  Huguenots  wished  to  forget  France.  In  Charles- 
ton the  children  of  the  refugees  were  not  appreciably 
different  from  the  English.  Successful  Huguenots 
tended  to  intermarry  in  English  families  for  the  sake  of 
social  prestige.  Moreover  Huguenot  names  were 
anglicized  thus  obscuring  the  history  of  families.  For 
a  long  while  the  Santee  Huguenots  intermarried  mainly 
among  themselves.  Not  before  the  end  of  the  second 
generation  did  the  French  on  the  Santee  merge  with  the 
English.  Even  then  the  blending  was  not  complete. 
At  the  end  of  the  colonial  period  the  Carolinas  con- 

^21  Huguenot  Society  of  South  Carolina,  Transactions,  61-62,  67-68. 


224       ilw  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

tained  many  villages  whose  inhabitants  were  all  Hugue- 
nots or  all  Highlanders. 

In  Georgia,  as  elsewhere,  the  strongest  appeals  were 
made  to  the  family  interest.  Oglethorpe  in  1732  set 
forth  that  a  family  of  father,  mother,  and  child  over 
seven,  able  to  earn  in  England  say  ten  pounds  per  year, 
all  told,  while  it  cost  them  twenty  pounds  to  live,  could 
in  Georgia  produce  a  gross  value  (including  land 
yield)  of  sixty  pounds  per  year.  This  beautiful  pros- 
pect for  a  man  with  only  one-fourth  of  normal  earning 
power  is  figured  out  thus:  He  will  be  assigned  a  lot 
of  about  fifty  acres.  The  usual  wage  of  common  labor 
in  Carolina  is  three  shillings  per  day. 

Our  poor  man  ...  at  about  gd.  per  day  earns  about  £12 
per  annum,  his  care  of  stock  on  his  land  in  his  hours  of  resting 
from  labor  (amount  to  3^  of  each  day)  is  worth  also  £12  per 
annum.  His  wife  and  eldest  child  may  easily  between  them 
earn  as  much  as  the  man. 

Provisions  will  be  cheap. 

Benjamin  Martyn  wrote  booming  the  Georgia  set- 
tlement and  picturing  the  Georgia  that  was  to  be: 
"Women  and  children  feeding  and  nursing  the  silk- 
worms, winding  ofif  the  silk,  or  gathering  the  olives;" 
men  "in  content  and  affluence,  and  masters  of  little 
possessions  which  they  can  leave  their  children."  The 
picture  is  an  attractive  contrast  to  their  condition  in 
England,  a  prey  to  want  and  "hunger,  and  seeing  their 
wives  and  children  in  the  same  distress." 

In  addition  to  very  liberal  food  allowances,  provi- 
sion was  made  for  sending  to  Georgia  on  charity  "such 
as  have  numerous  families  of  children,  if  assisted  by 
their  respective  parishes,  and  recommended  by  the  min- 
ister, church-warden,  and  overseers  thereof."  On  the 
voyage  to  America  the  German  dissenters  were  given 


The  Family  Motive  in  Southern  Colonization  225 

spaces  according  to  families.  The  single  men  were 
located  by  themselves.  The  women  were  given  thread, 
worsted,  and  knitting  needles,  and  they  were  required 
to  employ  their  ''leisure  time  in  making  stockings  and 
caps  for  their  family,  or  in  mending  their  cloaths  and 
linnen." 

"The  difficulties  of  the  southern  settlement"  were  con- 
sidered "almost  insuperable  to  women  and  children.'' 
But  new  settlers,  after  consulting  their  wives  and  fami- 
lies, resolved  to  go  on  to  Frederica,  as  brothers,  sons, 
and  servants  were  gone  before  and  it  would  be  base  to 
forsake  them. 

The  True  Narration  of  Georgia  published  at  Charles- 
ton in  1741  purports  to  expose  the  fraudulence  of  claims 
made  for  the  new  colony.  The  author  quotes  the  cal- 
culation as  to  the  "poor  man's"  magnified  earning  pow- 
ers in  Georgia  and  asserts  that  very  soon  after  the  settle- 
ment numbers  of  people  left  the  province  being  unable 
to  support  their  families  there.  Among  the  causes  of 
the  "Ruin  of  Georgia"  he  cites  the  restricting  of  land 
tenure  so  as  to  cut  ofif  daughters  and  other  relatives  from 
succession  in  default  of  male  heirs.  In  that  case  land 
reverted  to  the  trustees.  It  was  urged  also  that  "the 
extent  of  possessions"  was  too  much  restricted,  "it  being 
impossible  that  fifty  acres  of  good  land,  much  less  pine 
barren,  could  maintain  a  white  family."  Finding  it 
hard  to  support  their  families  settlers  hesitated  to  re- 
main in  the  colony.  Alarmed  at  the  prospect  of  de- 
population the  magistrates  joined  the  free-holders  in 
and  about  Savannah  in  petitioning  the  trustees  for  title 
in  fee  simple  and  the  use  of  negroes. ^^^  Right  of  inher- 
itance in  lieu  of  male  heirs  was  presently  granted  to 

^22  Arthur  and  Carpenter.     History  of  Georgia,  41,  47. 


226       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

daughters  as  will  appear  in  a  later  chapter;  moreover 
provision  was  made  for  grants  larger  than  fifty  acres. 

The  trustees  showed  a  willingness  to  make  concessions 
to  the  family  interest.  The  minutes  of  the  trustees  for 
July  26,  1742,  show  a  petition  of  Christian  Steinharrel, 
Theobald  Keifer,  etc.,  in  behalf  of  the  German  servants 
in  Savannah  indented  to  the  trustees.  Their  term  was 
about  to  expire  but  their  sons  were  bound  to  serve  till 
twenty-five,  and  the  girls  till  eighteen.  The  parents 
wanted  to  settle  in  Georgia  and  had  some  cattle  but 
"they  must  unavoidably  labor  under  great  difficulties 
by  being  deprived  of  the  freedom  of  their  children, 
without  whose  assistance  it  will  be  impossible  for  them 
to  make  any  progress  in  cultivating  the  land,  being  most 
of  them  advanced  in  years."  They  prayed  for  the  free- 
dom of  their  children  to  take  efifect  at  the  time  when 
their  own  indentures  should  expire.  The  trustees  re- 
solved to  recommend  to  the  council  to  grant  the  petition. 

As  previously  observed  English  primogeniture  drove 
younger  sons  across  the  ocean.  In  Georgia  gentle  stock 
and  serf  lineage  dressed  alike,  married  and  intermar- 
ried. 

As  indicated  in  the  account  of  Virginia  the  failure  of 
the  family  interest  was  a  factor  also  in  the  peopling  of 
the  South.  Recreant  husbands  and  wives  could  escape 
justice  by  coming  to  America.  The  Mayor  of  Bristol 
in  1662  said:  "Among  these  who  repair  to  Bristol" 
for  America  "some  are  husbands  that  have  forsaken 
their  wives,  others  wives  who  have  abandoned  their 
husbands,  some  are  children  and  apprentices  run  away 
from  their  parents  and  masters."  Bishop  Spangenberg 
(Moravian)  in  his  Journal  of  Travels  in  North  Caro- 
lina (1752)  noted  that  some  of  the  people  "have  left  a 
wife  and  children  elsew^here."     Some  involuntary  im- 


The  Family  Motive  in  Southern  Colonization  227 

migrants  to  America  were  persons  whose  marital  part- 
ners or  other  relatives,  for  reasons  of  their  own,  con- 
trived to  have  them  deported. ^^^  New  World  settlers 
removed  thus  from  all  restraints  of  family  were  exposed 
to  divers  temptations.  Yet  such  cases  as  these  do  not 
obscure  the  eminence  of  the  family  motive  in  American 
colonization. 

The  family  interest  was  prominent  in  migration  to 
the  frontier.  At  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  cen-  • 
tury  as  inducement  to  settlers  to  migrate  to  Western 
Virginia  every  male  or  female  coming  into  the  frontier 
colony  was  to  have  fifty  acres.  Families  were  to  have 
fifty  for  each  member.  Villages  did  not  spring  up  as 
had  been  expected.  Presbyterians  and  others  did  come 
as  settlers.  The  Presbyterian  congregations  in  Vir- 
ginia sought  wilderness  homes  "where  every  man's 
cabin  might  stand  upon  his  own  acres."  Pioneer  fam- 
ilies moved  in  companies  or  fixed  their  abodes  in  neigh- 
borhoods for  defence  and  for  social  and  religious  priv- 
ileges. In  some  places  intermarriage  merged  groups 
of  different  sects.  Thus  the  family  appears  as  the 
shaper  of  the  new  people. 

As  the  hunter  penetrated  the  western  wilds  and  found 
game  abundant  he  thought  to  himself,  "Well  now,  if  I 
had  the  old  woman  and  babies  here,  I  should  be  fixed." 
Special  inducements  were  offered  to  draw  population 
westward.  In  1776  Virginia  offered  each  family  set- 
tling vacant  lands  on  waters  of  the  Mississippi  four 
hundred  acres  and  to  families  who,  for  greater  safety, 
had  settled  together  and  worked  the  land  in  common  a 
town  site  of  six  hundred  forty  acres  was  given  and  a 
further  grant  of  four  hundred  acres  contiguous  to  town 
to  each  family  on  consideration  of  such  settlement. 

123  Morton.     History  of  Highland  County,  44-4S- 


XIII.     FAMILISM  AND  HOME  LIFE  IN  THE 
COLONIAL  SOUTH 

The  life  of  the  Southern  family,  at  least  on  the  coastal 
plain,  was  very  different  from  that  of  the  North  Atlan- 
tic section.  Especially  in  Maryland  and  tidewater  Vir- 
ginia did  plantation  life  prevail.  The  plantations  tend- 
ed to  isolation  and  self-support.  They  were  isolated 
because  tobacco  soon  sapped  the  fertility  of  the  soil  and 
made  it  necessary  to  seek  fresh  fields.  Old  grounds 
were  left  to  revert  to  wilderness.  Thus  plantations 
were  often  separated  by  belts  of  forest.  The  estates 
had  to  be  independent,  for  roads  were  poor  and  com- 
munication was  often  directly  with  England  by  means 
of  vessels  coming  up  the  streams  to  the  plantation  docks. 

Domestic  industry  was  a  matter  of  course.  In  old 
Virginia  female  slaves  and  white  servants  wove  coarse 
cloth  and  fashioned  it  into  suits.  Cotton  spinning  was 
a  home  industry.  Artisans  were  to  be  found  among  the 
indentured  servants.  Washington's  plantation  at  Mt. 
Vernon  was  a  specimen  of  the  self-sufficing  estate.  He 
had  a  smithy,  charcoal-burners,  brickmakers,  carpen- 
ters, masons,  a  flour-mill,  coopers,  and  a  vessel  to  carry 
produce  to  market.  He  also  employed  shoemakers  and 
operated  a  weaving  establishment. 

The  importation  of  white  slaves  was  promoted  by  the 
fact  that  the  immigrant  to  the  South  might  secure  for 
himself  additional  land  for  every  servant  brought  over. 

The  condition  and  treatment  of  bond-servants  was 
variable.     Redemptioners  were  often  separated  from 


230       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

their  family.  Alsop,  a  redemptioner  who  came  in  1658, 
paints  the  position  of  a  servant  in  Maryland  in  the 
brightest  colors  as  far  better  than  that  of  an  apprentice 
or  young  craftsman  in  London.  He  argues  in  favor  of 
the  indenture  of  children  as  a  means  of  giving  them  a 
place  in  the  world.  It  has  been  suggested  that  his  work 
is  perhaps  a  paid-for  puff  of  Maryland  in  the  interest 
of  the  proprietor  and  merchant  adventurers.  Opinion 
differs  on  this  point. 

The  author  of  Leah  and  Rachel  reports  that  in  Vir- 
ginia 

The  women  are  not  (as  is  reported)  put  into  the  ground  to 
worke,  but  occupie  such  domestique  imployments  and  house- 
wifery as  in  England,  that  is  dressing  victuals,  righting  up  the 
house,  milking,  imployed  about  dayries,  washing,  sewing,  etc., 
and  both  men  and  women  have  times  of  recreation,  as  much  or 
more  than  in  any  part  of  the  world  besides,  yet  some  wenches 
that  are  nasty,  beastly,  and  not  fit  to  be  so  imployed  are  put  into 
the  ground,  for  reason  tells  us,  they  must  not  at  charge  be 
transported  and  then  maintained  for  nothing,  but  those  that 
prove  so  aukward  are  rather  burdensome  then  servants  desira- 
ble or  useful. 

In  Maryland  of  1679, 

The  servants  and  negros,  after  they  have  worn  themselves  down 
the  whole  day  .  .  .  have  yet  to  grind  and  pound  the 
grain  .  .  .  for  their  masters  and  all  their  families,  as  well 
as  themselves  and  all  the  negros. 

A  letter  from  Savannah  dated  1741  reads: 

The  trustees  German  servants  in  general  behave  well  and  are 
industrious:  of  these,  eight  or  ten  families  are  more  remarkably 
so,  and  have  this  last  year  purchased  a  good  stock  of  cattle, 
some  having  six  cows,  the  least  two ;  and  each  having  a  garden, 
where  they  raise  some  corn,  peas,  pumpkins,  potatoes,  etc.,  which 
with  the  milk  of  their  cows  is  the  chief  part  of  their  food ;  they 
are  at  little  expense  for  clothing. 

On  the  St.  Johns  River  in  Florida  was  placed,  during 
the  English  regime  following  1763,  a  colony  of  people 


Home  Life  in  the  South  231 

from  the  Mediterranean.  They  were  "obliged  to  in- 
dent themselves,  their  wives  and  children  for  many 
years."     They  were  given 

A  pitiful  portion  of  land  for  ten  years  .  .  .  this  being 
improved  and  just  rendered  fit  for  cultivation,  at  the  end  of 
that  time  it  reverts  to  the  original  grantor,  and  the  grantee 
may,  if  he  chooses,  begin  a  new  state  of  vassalage  for  ten  years 
more.  Many  were  denied  even  such  grants  as  these,  and  were 
obliged  to  work  in  the  manner  of  negroes,  a  task  in  the 
field  .  .  .  instead  of  allowing  each  family  to  do  with  their 
homely  fare  as  they  pleased,  they  were  forced  to  join  altogether 
in  one  mess,  and  at  the  beat  of  a  vile  drum,  to  come  to  one 
common  copper,  from  whence  their  hominy  was  ladled  out  to 
them. 

In  Virginia  all  servants  and  apprentices  were  to  be 
taught  along  with  their  master's  children  every  Sun- 
day "just  before  evening  prayer"  by  the  minister  of  the 
parish.  In  view  of  the  shady  character  of  many  serv- 
ants in  the  South  such  a  measure  was  perhaps  appro- 
priate. The  shortage  of  good  servants  constituted  a 
Southern  household  problem. 

Geniality  of  climate  worked  against  frugality.  The 
appearance  of  opulence  on  the  large  plantation  is  illus- 
trated in  the  following  entry  in  1772  by  a  southern  gen- 
tleman: 

This  day  I  went  to  see  my  plantations  under  John  E. 
Beale.  .  .  Jack  lives  well;  but  I  was  sorry  to  see  his  wife 
act  the  part  of  a  fine  lady  in  all  her  wearing  aparell,  with  at 
least  two  maids  besides  her  own  girl  to  get  the  dinner  and  wait 
upon  her;  but  this  I  do  suppose  she  did  to  show  her  respect; 
however,  I  had  rather  have  seen  the  diligent,  industrious  woman. 

It  was  intended  to  make  Georgia  a  colony  of  home 
industry. 

A  man  with  his  son,  or  a  servant,  may,  without  much  trouble, 
gather  leaves  sufficient  for  as  many  worms  as  he  can  keep. 
His  wife  and  daughter  or  a  servant  maid  may  feed  and  attend 
the  worms  as  they  are  within  doors. 


232       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

The  southern  planter  could  turn  only  to  his  family  for 
regular  companionship.  Conditions  promoted  that 
patriarchal  regime  with  strong  feeling  for  family  ties 
so  typical  of  Maryland  and  tidal  Virginia  and  indeed 
of  the  plantation  South  in  general. 

The  ''family"  might  assume  large  proportions.  An 
•  act  of  the  Virginia  Assembly,  1640,  held  every  master 
of  family  responsible  for  the  military  service  of  each 
of  its  members,  the  "family"  including  servants  but  not 
blacks.  Of  North  Carolina  in  1752  Bishop  Spangen- 
berg  wrote: 

If  a  man  of  family  .  .  .  does  not  appear  before  a  jus- 
tice .  .  .  once  a  year,  and  render  an  account  of  all  taxa- 
ble propert}'^  .  .  .  also  the  names  and  ages  of  all  persons  of 
his  household  who  are  taxable,  be  they  white  or  black,  shall 
pay  a  fine  of  forty  shillings,  and  for  every  month  that  it  is  neg- 
lected, twenty  shillings  more. 

A  Georgia  letter  of  1740  runs  thus: 

I  have  this  day  .  .  .  inquired  at  Mr.  Whitefields  (who 
has  by  far  the  largest  family  of  any  in  this  colony  consisting  of 
nearly  150  persons)  and  received  the  following  account  .  .  . 
that  their  family  consists  of  60  persons,  including  bond  serv- 
ants, 61  orphans  and  other  poor  children,  25  working  trades- 
men, and  others,  in  all  146,  exclusive  of  many  others,  who  have 
remained  at  their  house  a  month,  two  or  three  months  at  a 
time  (and  have  been  accounted  to  be  of  their  family)  and  that 
all  the  family  are  in  good  health. 

The  influence  of  family  connection  was  strong  in  all 
the  old  colonies.  Virginia  saw  the  rise  of  families  of 
gentry  who  intermarried  for  generations  and  built  up  a 
landed  aristocracy.  Family  life  and  ties  reached 
strong  development  in  Virginia.  Every  person  de- 
sired to  found  a  family  or  spread  the  influence  of  the 
one  he  had.  Relationship  was  noted  to  a  degree  that 
made  the  term  "Virginia  cousin"  a  symbol  for  remote 
kinship.     A  strong  caste  spirit  grew  up.     The  leading 


Home  Life  in  the  South  233 

Virginians  of  a  later  day  were  proud  to  trace  their  pedi- 
gree. Coats  of  arms  were  esteemed.  The  vastness  of 
available  lands  held  in  abeyance  during  the  seventeenth 
century  the  disposition  to  magnify  the  social  standing 
of  a  family  by  the  cult  of  primogeniture  but  there  was 
a  potent  desire  to  promote  family  distinction  by  monop- 
oly of  as  many  public  offices  as  possible.  From  1670 
to  1691  every  official  position  in  Henrico  County  was 
filled  by  a  member  of  the  Randolph  family  or  of  two 
other  families.  Four  families  got  most  of  the  military 
offices  of  the  county.  Similar  conditions  prevailed  in 
all  the  older  counties  where  certain  families  had  been 
long  enough  to  establish  powerful  social  and  political 
connections.  Thus  colonial  Virginia  developed  a  priv- 
ileged hereditary  bureaucracy  so  that  offices  were  hand- 
ed from  father  to  son  and  the  social  system  became  fos- 
silized with  the  impedimenta  of  lineage. 

It  was  inevitable  that  as  soon  as  untaken  land  began 
to  be  relatively  scarce,  a  tendency  toward  soil  engross- 
ment within  the  family  would  develop.  This  trend  was 
not  altogether  due  to  direct  economic  considerations. 
It  was  in  some  degree  an  inheritance  of  the  English  idea 
that  the  ownership  of  large  lands  was  the  surest  foun- 
dation of  family  aristocracy.  Jefiferson  in  his  Memoirs 
wrote : 

At  the  time  of  the  first  settlement  of  the  English  in  Virginia, 
when  land  was  had  for  little  or  nothing,  some  provident  per- 
sons having  obtained  large  grants  of  it,  and  being  desirous  of 
maintaining  the  splendor  of  their  families,  entailed  their  prop- 
erty on  their  descendants.  The  transmission  of  these  estates 
from  generation  to  generation,  to  men  who  bore  the  same  name, 
had  the  effect  of  raising  up  a  distinct  class  of  families,  who, 
possessing  by  law  the  privilege  of  perpetuating  their  wealth, 
formed  by  these  means  a  sort  of  patrician  order,  distinguished 
by  the  grandeur  and  luxury  of  their  establishments. 


234       ^^'^'  ■^'i'^ii'f'ican  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

Nearly  all  the  extensive  Virginia  estates  were  ob- 
tained by  corrupt  means.  On  one  occasion  Fairfax  as 
proprietor  made  a  grant  of  three  hundred  thousand 
acres  to  his  nephew  who  promptly  and  fraudulently 
reconveyed  it  to  Fairfax  as  his  own.  Thus  was  laid  in 
fraud  the  basis  of  family  prestige  and  fortunes  in  the 
colonies -a  factor  of  great  influence  on  later  American 
affairs.^=* 

English  primogeniture  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
in  general  operation  in  the  seventeenth  century.  Real 
estate  was  not  yet  sufficiently  valuable  to  constitute  a  rare 
distinction  and  there  was  a  dearth  of  mechanical  trades 
for  younger  sons.  Generally  sons  shared  equally.  Of- 
ten the  oldest  son  was  allowed  first  voice  in  the  division 
of  the  estate.^"  Among  the  early  Eastern-Shoremen 
the  practice  of  dividing  estates  among  children  before 
decease  was  common.  They  did  not  greatly  favor  the 
doctrine  of  primogeniture.  The  first  entail  mentioned 
as  occurring  in  that  region  took  place  in  1653  and  en- 
tails were  relatively  rare.^^^ 

But  the  illiberal  spirit  took  strong  hold  of  Virginia. 
A  York  County  man  in  1688  bequeathed  all  lands  and 
tenements  to  his  eldest  son  in  ventre^  the  living  children 
being  daughters.  In  England  the  courts  could  cut  off 
entails;  but  an  old  Virginia  law  of  1705  forbade  this 
course  except  by  express  act  of  the  legislature.'"  Thus 
Virginia  feudalism  outdistanced  that  of  England.  Vir- 
ginia in  the  eighteenth  century  continued  patriarchal. 
No  creditor  could  touch  the  great  estate.  It  was  en- 
tailed on  the  eldest  son.  This  system  of  artificial  aris- 
tocracy prevailed  until  the  American  Revolution.     But 

124  Myers.     History  of  the  Supreme  Court,  22-27. 

^25  Bruce.  Social  Life  of  Virginia  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,  126-127 

126  Wise.  Ye  Kingdom  of  Accaivmacke,  319. 

127  Cooke.  Virginia,  445. 


Home  Life  in   the  South  235 

in  case  of  intestates  the  law  in  force  at  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century  gave  one  third  to  the  widow  and 
divided  the  rest  equally  among  the  children  with  special 
privilege  to  the  heir-at-law.  Moreover  most  of  the  dis- 
tinguished families  of  the  colony  degenerated.'^® 

In  Maryland  from  the  first  settlement  until  Ameri- 
can independence  lands  followed,  in  case  of  intestacy, 
the  English  law  of  primogeniture  but  parents  common- 
ly devised  tracts  of  land  to  their  younger  sons  and  often 
to  their  daughters.  Men  of  large  estate  not  infrequent- 
ly gave  property  to  a  "beloved  son-in-law,"  thus  be- 
stowing a  marriage  portion  on  a  daughter.  But  gen- 
erally fathers  bequeathed  the  home  plantation  to  the 
oldest  son.  In  the  absence  of.a  will  he  inherited  every- 
thing. The  widow  received  one  third  of  the  land  and 
a  dower  house  which  she  occupied  when  the  heir  came 
of  age  or  married  and  took  possession  of  the  mansion. 
English  entail  kept  lands  for  many  generations  in  the 
straight  male  line  inalienable  save  by  payment  of  a  fine 
to  the  proprietary. 

The  homestead  of  the  small  Maryland  farmer  was,  • 
in  its  way,  what  his  rich  neighbor's  plantation  was  on  a 
larger  scale.  It  too  was  largely  independent- a  little 
community.  On  both,  interest  and  devotion  centered 
in  the  family.  The  children  grew  up  and  spread  the 
area  of  cultivation  and  when  they  married  settled  on 
the  land.  But  the  manors  were  soon  divided  among  the 
different  descendants  of  the  original  proprietors.  The 
last  one  was  broken  up  by  the  death  of  Charles  Carroll 
of  Carrollton  at  the  end  of  the  first  third  of  the  nine- 
teenth century.  Thus  schemes  for  medieval  aristocracy 
came  to  naught. 

The  failure  of  feudal  principles  in  Maryland  and 

128  YVertenbaker.     Patrician  and  Plebeian  in  Virginia,  139-141. 


236       The  Aiuerican  Family -Colonial  Period 

Virginia  and  the  noteworthy  collapse  of  the  medieval 
project  for  feudalism  in  the  Carolinas  illustrate  the 
futility  of  dreaming  the  establishment  of  social  struc- 
tures without  the  requisite  economic  base  or  their  per- 
petuation after  that  base  is  gone.  One  can  not  create 
feudalism  with  a  sparse  population  in  a  limitless  land; 
nor  can  primogeniture  persist  when  land  is  too  plentiful 
to  be  a  great  prize,  and  when  there  is  lack  of  soft  open- 
ings for  younger  sons. 

North  Carolina  developed  on  more  uncouth  lines 
than  its  neighbors.  The  people  lived  in  isolated  inde- 
pendence, each  family  apart  on  its  small  farm  in  the 
midst  of  dense  swamps  and  wilds,  responsible  only  to 
itself.  The  living  came  largely  from  hunting,  with  a 
little  agriculture,  a  large  part  of  which  was  performed 
by  the  women.  German  settlers  began  settling  western 
North  Carolina  about  1750.  Among  them  the  paternal 
abode  generally  passed  to  one  child;  other  children 
built  near  by.  Land  seldom  passed  from  family  to 
family.  In  many  instances  the  descendants  of  the  pio- 
neers continued  on  the  ancestral  homesteads  at  least  un- 
til recent  times. 

In  none  of  the  southern  colonies  was  city  life  impor- 
tant save  in  South  Carolina.  At  Charleston  lived  the 
wealthiest  planters.  They  were  more  prosperous  and 
in^epelident  than  those  in  the  colonies  farther  north, 
who  in  spite  of  their  apparent  wealth  were  generally 
deep  in  debt  and  frequently  fell  into  bankruptcy  due  to 
wasteful  agricultural  methods,  speculative  disposition, 
reckless  habits,  and  expensive  tastes."®  The  unhealth- 
ful  climate  in  the  rice  lands  of  South  Carolina  forced 
the  planters  to  live  in  town.  Even  then  exposure  to 
disease  and  hard  living  killed  off  the  men  so  rapidly 

129  xhwaites.     The  Colonies,  98,  107. 


Home  Life  in  the  South  237 

that  it  was  common  for  a  woman  to  have  several  suc- 
cessive husbands. 

Fraud  was  present  in  the  acquisition  of  great  Caro- 
lina and  Georgia  estates.  Governor  Wright  wrote  from 
Savannah  to  the  Lords  of  Trade,  1763,  referring  to  the 
"very  extraordinary  procedure  of  the  Governor  of 
South  Carolina"  in  allowing  a  few  to  monopolize  the 
most  valuable  areas. 

I  say,  my  lords,  this  procedure  has  struck  a  general  damp  and 
dispirited  the  whole  province.  .  .  An  extension  of  the  lim- 
its to  the  southward,  if  the  lands  were  properly  parcelled  out 
to  people  who  would  really  cultivate  and  improve  them,  would 
draw  some  thousand  inhabitants  here;  whereas,  by  this  step 
taken  in  Carolina,  great  part  of  the  lands,  my  lords,  are  or- 
dered in  large  tracts  to  some  wealthy  settlers  in  Carolina,  who 
probably  will  never  see  it  themselves,  and  some  of  whom,  it  is 
said,  have  already  more  lands  in  that  province  than  they  can 
cultivate  or  improve.  This,  my  lords,  is  pretty  well  known  on 
this  side  of  the  water;  and  who,  having  a  great  number  of 
slaves,  claim  what  they  call  their  family  right,  that  is,  fifty  acres 
of  land  for  each  slave,  although  it  is  highly  probable  that  their 
ancestors  had  land  for  those  very  slaves,  and  it  is  well  under- 
stood here  that  many  of  those  persons,  especially  those  who  have 
the  largest  tracts,  have  no  intention  to  remove  here  or  settle 
them;  but  probably  some  years  hence,  when  it  begins  to  get 
valuable,  will  sell  it,  and  in  the  meantime  those  vast  tracts  of 
land  are  to  lie  waste  and  unimproved,  as  very  great  bodies  yet 
do  in  Carolina,  and  if  they  should  do  anything  at  all  with  those 
lands,  it  is  expected  that  it  will  only  be  by  sending  an  overseer 
and  a  few  negros  [as  a  technical  occupation  of  the  land]. 

The  problem  of  family  interest  in  land  tenure  and 
the  question  of  primogeniture  caused  great  concern  in 
the  Georgia  colony,  especially  as  it  was  a  military  out- 
post against  Spain.  Four  of  the  colonists  before  going 
asked  that  daughters  might  inherit  as  well  as  sons  and 
that  widows'  dower  be  considered.     It  was 

Agreed  that  the  persons  who  now  go  over,  and  desire  the  same, 


238       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

shall  have  the  priviledge  of  naming  a  successor  to  the  lands 
granted  them,  who  in  case  they  die  without  issue  male,  shall 
enjoy  the  same  to  them  and  their  heirs  male  for  ever.  Agreed 
that  the  widows  shall  have  their  thirds  as  in  England. 

The  Trustees  in  a  later  account  of  the  colony  give  as  the 
reason  for  first  ''making  it  tail  male^''  the  need  of  sol- 
diers. 

Moore  in  his  Voyage  to  Georgia  (his  trip  began  in 
1735  and  he  published  his  account  in  1744),  wrote: 
All  lots  are  granted  in  tail  male,  and  descend  to  the  heirs  male 
of  their  bodies  forever.  .  .  [In  default  of  male  heirs,  lands 
revert  to  the  Trust  to  be  granted  as  seems  best.]  They  will 
have  a  special  regard  to  the  daughters  of  freeholders  who  have 
made  improvements  on  their  lots,  not  already  provided  for,  by 
having  married,  or  marrying  persons  in  possessions,  or  entitled 
to  lands  in  the  province  of  Georgia,  in  possession  or  remain- 
der. .  .  The  wives  of  the  freeholders,  in  case  they  should  sur- 
vive their  husbands,  are,  during  their  lives,  entitled  to  the 
mansion  house,  and  one  half  of  the  lands  improved  by  their 
husbands.  .  .  In  order  to  maintain  many  people,  it  was 
proper  that  the  land  should  be  divided  into  small  portions,  and 
to  prevent  uniting  them  by  marriage  or  purchase.  .  .  They 
suffered  the  moiety  of  the  lots  to  descend  to  the  widows  during 
their  lives:  those  who  remarried  to  men  who  had  lots  of  their 
own  by  uniting  two  lots  made  one  to  be  neglected.  .  .  These 
uncleared  lots  are  a  nuisance  to  their  neighbors.  .  .  The 
quantity  of  land  by  experience  seems  rather  too  much  (50  acres) 
since  it  is  impossible  that  one  poor  family  can  tend  so  much 
land.  .  .  The  trustees  grant  the  land  in  tail  male,  that  on 
the  expiring  of  a  male  line  they  may  regrant  it  to  such  man, 
having  no  other  lot,  as  shall  be  married  to  the  next  female  heir 
of  the  deceased,  as  is  of  good  character. 

The  restrictions,  as  noted  previously,  aroused  resent- 
ment. In  a  letter  to  Oglethorpe,  "the  Plain-dealer" 
wrote : 

I  shall  suppose  that,  were  full  and  ample  rights  given,  that 
some  idle  persons,  who  had  no  judgment  to  value,  or  inclina- 


Home  Life  in  the  South  239 

tion  to  improve  their  properties,  no  affections  for  their  families 
or  relations,  might  dispose  of  their  rights  for  a  glass  of  rum; 
but  I  absolutely  deny,  that  the  colony  could  lose  by  such  an 
exchange.  I  own  such  persons  were  much  safer  if  bound  than 
at  liberty;  but  where  the  affection  of  the  parent  and  the  reason 
of  the  man  die,  the  person  is  a  fitter  inhabitant  for  Moorfields 
than  Georgia.  I  must  notice  further,  that  not  only  are  parents 
incapable  for  want  of  credit,  to  provide  for  themselves,  being 
necessitated  to  dispose  of  their  servants  for  want  of  provisions; 
but  if  they  could,  only  their  eldest  son  could  reap  the  benefit; 
their  younger  children,  however  numerous,  are  left  to  be  fed 
by  Him  who  feeds  the  ravens;  and  if  they  have  no  children, 
their  labor  and  substance  descends  to  strangers.  How,  sir, 
could  you,  or  indeed  any  free-born  spirit,  brook  such  a  tenor? 
Are  not  our  younger  children  and  daughters  equally  entitled  to 
our  bowels  and  affections?  And  does  human  nature  end  with 
our  first,  and  not  extend  itself  to  the  rest  of  our  progeny  and 
more  distant  relations?  And  is  it  not  inverting  the  order  of  na- 
ture, that  the  eldest  son  should  not  only  enjoy  a  double  portion, 
but  exclude  all  the  younger  children?  and  having  an  interest 
independent  of  the  parents',  how  natural  is  it  he  should  with- 
draw that  obedience  and  subjection  which  proceeds  from  pater- 
nal authority  and  filial  dependence ! 

This  remonstrance  was  included  in  the  True  and  His- 
torical Narration  by  several  landholders  in  Georgia 
printed  in  Charleston,  1741. 

In  1739  the  trustees  had  revised  the  law  so  as  to  allow 
the  widow  to  enjoy,  if  there  were  children,  a  moiety  of 
the  property  during  her  life  and,  if  no  children,  all  of  it. 
This  grant  was  to  be  void  if  she  remarried,  unless  the 
new  husband  would  give  security  to  keep  the  property 
in  good  condition,  and  then  it  was  to  go  to  her  heirs. 
Further  if  any  tenant  died  without  male  heirs,  any 
daughter  might  hold  all  (in  tail  male),  if  not  over 
eighty  acres,  and  if  there  was  more  than  that  amount,  it 
might  be  held  by  one  or  more  daughters  designated  by 
will.      In   default  of   such   apportionment   the   eldest 


240       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

daughter  was  to  hold  in  tail  male.     If  there  was  no 

issue  the  man  might  will  the  land  in  tail.     In  case  of 

intestacy  the  property  went  to  the  heir  at  law.     No 

devise  was  to  be  made  of  over  eighty  acres  or  less  than 

fifty  to  one  person.     No  person  could  enjoy  a  devise  if 

it   increased    his   estate   to   over   five   hundred    acres. 

Martyn  in  the  Impartial  Inquiry^  written  in  1741,  said: 

The  daughter  of  a  freeholder,  or  any  other  person,  is  made 

capable  of  enjoying  by  inheritance  a  devise  of  lands,  provided 

that  it  does  not  increase  her  or  his  possessions  to  more  than 

2000  acres. 

These  changes  had  not  come  about  without  consider- 
able agitation.  When  concessions  were  made  they  were 
alleged  to  be  too  complex  to  be  understood.  The  ani- 
mus of  the  campaign  can  be  gathered  from  the  com- 
plaint that  "several  of  the  houses  which  were  built  by 
freeholders,  for  want  of  heirs  male,  are  fallen  to  the 
trustees." 

The  scope  and  influence  of  family  relationship  was 
great  in  the  South.  Sometimes  several  brothers  came 
together  to  America.  In  many  cases  men  of  wealth 
brought  over  their  young  kinsmen  and  friends,  for  each 
of  whom,  in  Maryland,  they  received  fifty  acres  of  land. 
(There  the  larger  the  family  group  the  better.  Poor 
kinsfolk  were  welcome  assets.)  There  it  was  customary 
for  such  a  "servant"  to  receive  the  fifty  acres  on  reach- 
ing freedom.  Redemptioners  signed  in  Europe  con- 
tracts that  surviving  members  of  a  family  must  make 
good  the  loss  of  ones  dying  en  voyage.  So  a  wife  that 
lost  her  husband  or  her  children  would  be  sold  for  five 
years  for  her  own  voyage  and  additional  years  for  the 
fare  of  her  dead  husband  or  children  tho  they  had  died 
at  the  very  start  of  the  voyage. 

Ties  persisted  between  English  and  American  branch- 


Home  Life  in  the  South  241 

es  of  families.  In  seventeenth  century  Virginia  there 
were  numerous  bequests  from  the  colonial  branch  of  a 
family  to  the  English.  Often  Virginia  children  were 
commended  to  the  care  of  their  kindred  oversea  while 
pursuing  education  at  an  English  school.  These  trans- 
oceanic relations  were  hard  to  maintain  in  that  day  of 
slow  transit.  In  Maryland  false  claims  to  property 
were  frequently  made  in  the  absence  of  the  rightful 
heirs  abroad. 

The  dominance  of  familism  in  the  colonial  South 
was  promoted  by  rural  isolation  as  has  been  seen. 
Landed  gentry  had  family  burying-grounds  on  their 
own  estates.  Hugh  Jones  wrote  regretfully  of  this  in- 
dividualism: "It  is  customary  to  bury  in  garden,  or 
orchards,  where  whole  families  lye  interred  togeth- 
er ..  .  the  graves  kept  decently."  Some  of  the 
German  settlers  in  western  North  Carolina  had  family 
graveyards.  It  could  scarcely  be  expected  that  planta- 
tion dwellers  on  widely  separated  estates  and  remote 
pioneers  would  observe  the  institution  of  burial  in 
church  grounds. 

Early  Virginia  legislation  showed  a  disposition  to 
promote  familism.     By  acts  of  1623- 1624 

All  the  old  planters  that  were  here  before  or  came  in  at  the  last 
coming  of  Sir  Thomas  Gates  they  and  their  posterity  shall  be 
exempted  from  their  personal  service  to  the  warrs  and  any  pub- 
lic charge  (church  duties  excepted)  that  belong  particularly  to 
their  persons  (not  exempting  their  families)  except  such  as  shall 
be  employed  to  command  in  chief. 

In  1 63 1  the  phrase  "they  and  their  posterity"  was  struck 
out. 

About  the  time  that  Puritanism  was  getting  hold  in 
Massachusetts,  Virginia  enacted  blue  laws:    Men  were 
to  dress  according  to  rank  and  the  law  of  1619  provided 
Against  excesse  in  apparel  1  that  every  man  be  cesscd   in  the 


242       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

church  for  all  publique  contributions,  if  he  be  unmarried  ac- 
cording to  his  owne  apparell,  if  he  be  married  according  to  his 
owne  and  his  wives,  or  either  of  their  apparell. 

We  read  of  charming  family  relations  in  the  colonial 
South.  Life  at  the  South  was  grander,  shabbier,  and 
more  genial  than  in  the  Puritan  commonwealths.  Home 
rather  than  church  was  the  shrine  of  the  colonial  cav- 
alier, notwithstanding  his  nominal  reverence  for  "moth- 
er church."  It  was  at  home  that  most  christenings  and 
funerals  occurred  and  Hugh  Jones  complained  that  "in 
houses  they  most  commonly  marry." 

The  Virginia  planter  on  his  manor  surrounded  by  his 
family  and  retainers  was  a  feudal  lord.  At  the  great 
Christmas  festival  around  the  huge  log  fires  gathered 
the  family  clan.  It  was  a  time  of  joy  for  high  and  low. 
This  plantation  life  in  a  mild  climate  and  cut  ofif  from 
the  great  world  gave  rise  to  the  greater  geniality  of 
southern  family  relations  and  to  the  deep  attachment 
to  the  soil,  so  proverbial  in  those  regions.  Coaches  of 
four  rolled  from  the  doors  of  the  aristocracy.  Profu- 
sion of  gold  and  silver  plate  shone  on  the  boards  even 
while  the  Declaration  of  Independence  in  high-sound- 
ing phrase  voiced  the  stage-play  theories  of  make-be- 
lieve "democracy."  More  than  a  hundred  years  earlier 
the  English  people  had  been  informed: 

Your  ordinary  houses  in  England  are  not  so  handsome  [as  the 
houses  in  Virginia]  for  usually  the  rooms  are  large,  daubed 
and  white-washed,  glazed  and  flowered,  and  if  not  glazed  win- 
dows, shutters  which  are  made  very  pretty  and  convenient. 

Soil  engrossment  was  a  means  to  that  isolation  of 
dwelling  that  has  always  appealed  to  the  Englishman. 
No  hedge  or  walls  were  needed  in  Virginia.  Hill  and 
grove  furnished  natural  screens.  The  secluded  life  in- 
tensified hospitality  as  well  as  family  affection.  As 
houses  were  small  and  families  large,  bed-rooms  were 


Home  Life  in  the  South  243 

overcrowded  in  early  colonial  days/^°  Governor 
Berkeley's  home  at  Green  Spring  had  only  six  rooms 
and  a  hall.  The  planters  found  it  necessary  to  put  beds 
in  every  room  save  the  kitchen.  In  the  parlor  might  be 
found  not  only  beds  but  chests  of  clothing  and  linen. 
An  account  of  the  eastern  shore  of  Virginia  (seven- 
teenth century)  says  that  there  seem  to  have  been  few 
homes  at  that  time  without  musical  instruments.  The 
James  River  mansions  and  others  that  survive  were 
erected  in  the  eighteenth  century. 

Rude  tenant  huts  about  the  southern  mansions  formed 
sharp  contrast  to  the  relative  grandeur  of  aristocratic 
life.  But  for  many  years  in  Virginia  wages  were  high ; 
so  that  laborers  could  accumulate  means  to  buy  a 
farm."^  Squatters  were  sometimes  driven  from  homes 
and  farms. 

Colonial  Virginia  was  well  supplied  with  taverns,  or 
grog  shops.  The  use  of  liquor  was  general.  The  de- 
velopment of  high  class  hotels  was  retarded  by  the  fact 
that  the  presence  of  strangers  was  a  welcome  break  in 
the  montony  of  plantation  life  and  hence  the  traveler 
need  not  pay  for  accommodations.  A  Virginia  act  of 
1663  throws  interesting  side-light  on  the  entertainment 
of  strangers: 

Whereas  it  is  frequent  with  divers  inhabitants  of  this  country 
to  entertain  strangers  into  their  home  without  making  any 
agreement  with  the  party  what  he  shall  pay  for  his  accomoda- 
tions, which  (if  the  party  live)  causes  many  litigous  suites,  and 
if  the  stranger  dye  lays  a  gap  open  to  many  avaricious  persons 
to  injure  the  estate  of  the  person  deceased,  f¥or  remedy  whereof 
for  the  future,  be  it  enacted  that  noe  person  not  making  a 
positive  agreement  with  any  one  he  shall  entertayne  into  his 
home  for  diet  or  storeage  shall  recover  anything  against  any 

i3o\Yertenbaker.  Patrician  and  Plebeian  in  Virginia,  113;  Yonge.  Site 
of  Old  "James  Toinne,"  141. 

:3i  Wertenbaker,  op.  cit.,  183-184. 


244       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

one  soe  eiitertayned,  or  against  his  estate,  but  that  every  one 
shall  be  reputed  to  entertayne  those  of  curtesie  with  whom  they 
make  not  a  certain  agreement. 

Early  Maryland  did  not  differ  from  Virginia  in  pride 
of  birth  and  family.  There  are  strong  proofs  of  family 
affection.  Deeds  of  gift  of  large  lands  to  sons  and 
daughters  for  "natural  love  and  affection"  show  us  the 
human  side  of  remote  forbears.  Sons  were  not  ex- 
pected to  wait  till  their  parents'  death  before  having  a 
home  of  their  own.  Fathers  encouraged  sons  to  marry 
early;  this  was  easy  with  a  good  plantation.  Daugh- 
ters were  endowed  with  land  at  the  time  of  marriage. 
Many  homes  originating  thus  are  still  the  foundation 
of  family  pride  after  nine  generations.  Hospitality  to 
friends  ran  high.  Home  life  was  fuller  in  those  early 
days,  the  days  on  which  ideals  of  home  life  ground. 
Yet  no  modern  town  could  equal  Annapolis  in  the  pro- 
portion of  club  life."^ 

The  Huguenots  embellished  society  with  the  cour- 
tesies and  graces  of  domestic  life.     J.  A.  Johnson  says: 

When  the  writer  on  the  South  wants  characters  for  a  story  of 
domestic  joy  and  content,  and  that  cause  life  to  run  smoothly 
into  a  green  old  age  -  an  age  crowned  with  the  glory  of  chil- 
dren's children  -  he  can  turn  to  old  Huguenot  life  at  Bor- 
deaux in  Abbeville  County. 

In  the  later  eighteenth  century  wealthy  families  of 
Charleston  kept  open  house.  One  merchant  had  "guests 
almost  every  day  at  one  or  more  of  the  four  meals." 
He  had  to  entertain  ship  captains  and  the  like.  Per- 
haps Huguenot  influence  cherishing  French  usage  had 
something  to  do  with  society  standards.  On  the  eve  of 
the  Revolution  marriages  were  formal  affairs  requiring 
consultation  of  parents  and  guardians,  and  approbation 
of  the  family. 

132  Fisher.    Men,  fVomen,  and  Manners  in  Colonial  Times,  vol.  ii,  207. 


XIV.     SOUTHERN    COLONIAL   COURTSHIP 

AND  MARRIAGE  AS  SOCIAL 

INSTITUTIONS 

As  commonly  in  new  countries  so  in  the  American 
South  marriage  was  highly  esteemed.  The  foundation 
was  early  laid  for  that  conservatism  that  even  yet  char- 
acterizes southern  marriage. 

The  exigencies  and  opportunities  of  pioneer  life  op- 
erated to  produce  universal,  early,  and  repeated  mar- 
riage. The  colonial  maiden  came  into  society  and 
married  with  astonishing  precocity.  In  seventeenth 
century  Virginia  if  the  father  made  a  gift  to  his  daugh- 
ter it  was  customary  to  insert  a  proviso  in  case  she  mar- 
ried before  sixteen.  In  one  clandestine  marriage  in 
Northhampton  County  the  wife  was  not  past  her  twelfth 
year.  Chief  Justice  Marshall  met  and  fell  in  love  with 
his  wife  when  she  was  fourteen  and  married  her  at  six- 
teen. In  North  Carolina  cheap  lands  and  large  fami- 
lies promoted  early  marriage  of  the  children.  Mar- 
riage at  thirteen  was  not  very  unusual  and  at  fifteen 
was  most  common.  Doctor  Brickell,  who  practised  in 
North  Carolina  at  Edenton  about  173 1,  wrote:  "They 
marry  generally  very  young,  some  at  thirteen  or  four- 
teen, and  she  that  continues  unmarried  until  twenty, 
is  reckoned  a  stale  maid,  which  is  a  very  indifferent 
character  in  that  country."  A  colonial  spinster  of  over 
twenty-five  was  regarded  as  a  hopeless  and  confirmed 
old  maid. 

Men  also  married  at  an  early  age.     But  marriage  was 


246       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

less  essential  to  a  man  and  some  males  began  to  see  ad- 
vantages in  single  life.  Colonial  Maryland  was  marked 
•  by  the  number  of  adult  unmarried  sons  living  at  home. 
Bachelors,  along  with  light  wines  and  billiard  tables, 
were  taxed  for  the  French  war.  There  were  many  to 
pay  the  tax.  Between  1755  and  1763  there  were  in  the 
parish  of  St.  Thomas  thirty-nine  recorded  bachelors. 
St.  Anne's  parish  vestry  books  show  thirty-four  bach- 
elors subject  to  the  colony  tax  on  unmarried  men  over 
twenty-five.  The  tax  was  scarcely  heavy  enough  to 
promote  marriage:  five  shillings  on  estates  under  three 
hundred  pounds  sterling  and  twenty  shillings  on  larger 
estates.  This  burden  was  a  small  one  compared  to  the 
cares  of  a  household. 

It  may  be  that  celibacy  indicated  inability  to  meet 
the  growing  demands  of  luxury.  The  Abbe  Robin  at  a 
later  date  says  of  Annapolis:  "Female  luxury  here 
exceeds  what  is  known  in  the  provinces  of  France.  A 
French  hair-dresser  is  a  man  of  importance,  it  is  said  a 
certain  dame  here,  hires  one  of  that  craft  at  a  thousand 
crowns  a  year  salary."  George  Grieve,  an  Englishman, 
writing  of  the  Revolutionary  period,  said: 

The  rage  for  dress  amongst  the  women  in  America,  in  the  very 
height  of  the  miseries  of  the  war,  was  beyond  all  bounds;  nor 
was  it  confined  to  the  great  towns,  it  prevailed  equally  on  the 
sea-coasts,  and  in  the  woods  and  solitudes  of  the  vast  extent  of 
country  from  Florida  to  New  Hampshire.  .  .  In  travel- 
ling into  the  interior  parts  of  Virginia  I  spent  a  delicious  day 
at  an  inn,  at  the  ferry  of  the  Shenandoah  .  .  .  with  the 
most  engaging,  accomplished  and  voluptuous  girls,  the  daugh- 
ters of  the  landlord,  a  native  of  Boston  transplanted  thither; 
who  with  all  the  gifts  of  nature  possessed  the  arts  of  dress  not 
unworthy  of  Parisian  milliners,  and  went  regularly  three  times 
a  week  .  .  .  seven  miles,  to  attend  the  lessons  of  one  De 
Grace,  a  French  dancing  master,  who  was  making  a  fortune 
in  the  country. 


Southern   Courtship  and  Marriage  247 

There  is  a  suggestion  that  women,  as  well  as  men 
were  supposed  to  be  in  danger  of  perverse  neglect  to 
marry.     It  must  have  been  a  feeling  that  unmarried   . 
females  were  anomalous  that  led  to  the  early  Maryland 
law: 

That  it  may  be  prevented  that  noe  woman  here  vow  chastity 
in  the  world,  unless  she  marry  within  seven  years  after  land 
fall  to  her,  she  must  either  dispose  away  of  hir  land,  or  else 
she  shall  forfeite  it  to  the  next  of  kinne,  and  if  she  have  but 
one  manner,  whereas  she  cannot  alienate  it,  it  is  gonne  unless 
she  git  a  husband. 

Thomas  Copley  wrote  to  Lord  Baltimore: 

To  what  purpose  this  ole  law  is  maid  your  lorpe  perhaps  will 
see  better  than  I  for  my  part  I  see  great  dilficultys  in  it,  but  to 
what  purpose  I  well  see  not. 

He  must  have  been  very  obtuse  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
celibacy  was  out  of  place  in  a  new  country  needing  peo- 
ple. In  1642  there  were  four  female  householders 
numbered  among  taxable  citizens. 

The  precocity  of  colonial  marriage  allowed  time  for 
repetitions  of  the  act.  Many  of  the  Virginia  girls  that 
married  in  childhood  and  assumed  the  burdens  of  fam- 
ily at  so  immature  an  age  became  broken  in  health  and 
after  bearing  a  dozen  children  died  leaving  their  hus- 
bands to  marry  again  and  beget  new  broods  perhaps  as 
large  as  the  first.  On  the  eastern  shore  of  Virginia  in 
the  seventeenth  century  it  was  not  remarkable  for  a  man 
to  have  three  or  four  successive  wives.  There  were  in- 
stances of  Virginians  married  six  times.  It  is  not  un- 
usual to  find  a  colonial  dame  that  was  married  four 
times.  Few  conspicuous  colonial  men  in  Virginia,  at 
least,  lived  beyond  middle  life;  most  died  short  of  it. 
The  malarial  climate,  exposure,  and  reckless  habits  cut 
them  off.     The  young  and  attractive  widows  need  not 


248       The  American  Family- Colonial  Period 

remain  long  forlorn  in  a  country  with  a  preponderance 
of  males,  at  least  if  the  feminine  charms  were  supple- 
mented by  a  fine  plantation.  Sometimes  the  relay  was 
so  close  that  the  second  husband  was  granted  the  pro- 
bate of  the  will  of  the  first.  In  one  case  funeral  baked 
meats  furnished  the  marriage  table.  One  husband  left 
all  the  estate  to  his  wife's  children  by  her  next  marriage. 
Quickness  of  remarriage  does  not  indicate  callousness 
but  rather  the  woman's  need  of  protection  on  the  plan- 
tation and  of  an  overseer  for  the  work.'^^ 

A  noticeable  feature  of  colonial  Virginia  was  the 
belleship  of  widows. ^^*  Maidens  seem  not  to  have  been 
"in  it."  As  we  come  toward  the  Revolution  the  widows 
still  reign  supreme.  It  may  be  that  the  larger  social 
experience  of  the  widows  magnified  their  charms  or 
made  them  more  adept  at  handling  bashful  lovers. 
Washington  belonged  in  this  class  if  we  may  trust  the 
sentimental  poems  that  he  wrote  to  the  unknown  maiden 
that  he  loved  when  he  was  fifteen.  After  several  un- 
successful afifairs  he  probably  was  sufficiently  experi- 
enced not  to  dally  in  his  wooing  of  Mrs.  Custis.  Pat- 
rick Henry's  father  married  a  widow;  so  did  Jefiferson 
and  James  Madison. 

The  charms  of  a  widow  were  likely  to  be  largely 
economic.  The  second  husband  counted  himself  the 
real  successor  of  the  first,  entitled  to  demand  whatever 
was  due  to  his  predecessor.  In  1692  the  governor  and 
council  of  Maryland  were  thus  petitioned: 

James  Brown  of  St.  Mary's  who  married  the  widow     .     .     . 
of  Thomas  Pew     ...     by  his  petition  humbly  prays  allow- 

133  On  remarriage,  see  Wise,  Ye  Kingdom  of  Accaiamacke,  319;  Bruce, 
Social  Life  of  Virgima  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,  224,  226;  Barton,  Vir- 
ginia Colonial  Decisions,  vol.  i,  226. 

134  Goodwin.  The  Colonial  Cavalier,  51;  Earle.  Colonial  Dames  and 
Goodivives,  34-39. 


Southern  Courtship  and  Marriage  249 

ance  for  two  years  sallary  due  to  his  predecessor  as  publick 
post  ...  as  also  for  the  use  of  a  horse,  and  the  loss  of  a 
servant  wholly,  by  the  said  Pew  deputed  in  his  sickness  to  offi- 
ciate; and  ran  clear  away  with  his  horse,  some  clothes,  etc.,  and 
for  several  months  after  not  heard  of. 

Often  seemingly  insoluble  tangles  arose  from  the  re- 
peated marriages  of  widows,  often  to  widowers.  Some- 
times, especially  when  three  or  more  sets  of  children 
were  involved,  the  labyrinth  of  property  rights  was  a 
puzzle. 

The  colonists  were  naturally  delighted  with  the  high 
marriage  rate.  The  South  Carolina  Gazette  of  March 
2,  1734  remarks: 

We  have  by  the  last  advice  from  Purrysburg  an  account  of  the 
noble  effects  the  climate  of  that  colony  has  produced:  there  is 
six  couples  embarked  thence  for  Savannah  in  Georgia  to  be 
joyned  in  the  holy  state  of  matrimony,  and  half  a  dozen  pair 
more  are  preparing  themselves  for  the  same. 

In  the  early  plantation  of  Maryland  there  was  no  , 
official  wife  market.  Yet  the  trade  was  as  brisk  as  in 
Virginia.  Many  of  the  women  that  came  as  servants 
to  Maryland  between  1634  and  1670  married  well  and' 
gained  wealth  and  distinction.  Thus  "Helenor  Steph- 
enson, who  came  out  from  England  with  Sir  Edmund 
Plouden  as  his  servant,  was  lawfully  joined  in  matri- 
mony with  Mr.  Wm.  Braithwaite  of  St.  Marie's." 
Anne  Bolton  of  St.  Martin  in  the  Fields  was  sold  to 
Mr.  Francis  Brooke  for  his  wife.  These  servants  were 
often  innocent  country  girls  that  had  been  kidnapped.  ' 
Women  that  went  to  Maryland  as  servants  had  "the 
best  luck  in  the  world,"  they  were  courted  as  soon  as 
they  landed.  "As  for  women,"  says  Alsop  (a  redemp- 
tioner  of  1658),  "they  no  sooner  arrive  than  they  are 
besieged  with  offers  of  matrimony,  husbands  being 
ready  soon   for   those  whom   nature   had   apparently 


250       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

marked  out  and  predestined  for  lives  of  single  blessed- 
ness." 

One  of  the  most  notable  of  the  female  immigrants 
was  a  niece  of  Daniel  Defoe,  who,  crossed  in  love  in 
England,  ran  away  to  America  as  a  redemptioner.  She 
afterwards  married  her  owner's  son.  Governor  Charles 
Calvert  wrote  to  Lord  Baltimore  in  1672:  "Before 
William  Brooks  died,  he  had  a  great  inclination  for  a 
young  woman  here  who  is  my  servant  to  whom  upon  his 
death-bed  he  gave  3000^*  of  Tobacco."  In  the  Sotweed 
Factor  the  author  narrates  a  quarrel  over  cards,  in 
which  the  planters'  wives  abuse  each  other.     One  says: 

Tho  now  so  brave 

I  knew  you  late  a  four  years'  slave, 

What  if  for  planter's  wife  you  go, 

Nature  designed  you  for  the  hoe. 

A  maid  is  represented  as  saying: 

Kidnapt  and  fooled,  I  hither  fled. 
To  shun  a  hated  nuptial  bed. 

To  which  is  attached  this  note :  "These  are  the  general 
excuses  made  by  English  Women,  which  are  sold,  or 
sell  themselves  to  Maryland." 

In  numbers  of  cases  sisters  that  came  to  Maryland  as 
housekeepers  for  brothers  soon  found  husbands.  An 
act  for  pillory  and  ducking-stools  exempted  Baltimore 
and  Talbot  Counties  "because  they  are  not  sufficiently 
settled."  One  wonders  whether  this  exemption  was 
•  designed  to  attract  women.  But  men,  also,  found  in 
Maryland  matches  above  their  station.  Many  trans- 
ported persons  and  some  servants  had  married  within  a 
few  years,  perhaps  the  daughters  of  councillors. 

Bullock  advises  English  fathers  to  send  daughters 
rather  than  sons  to  Virginia  and  promises  that  they 

Will  receive  instead  of  give  portions  for  them.     .     .     Maid 
servants  of  good  honest  stock  may  choose  their  husbands  out 


Southern   Courtship  and  Marriage  251 

of  the  better  sort  of  people.  Have  sent  over  many  but  never  • 
could  keep  one  at  my  plantation  three  months  except  a  poor  filly 
wench  made  fit  to  foille  to  set  of  beauty  and  yet  a  proper  young 
fellow  served  twelve  months  for  her.  [He  tells  men  servants 
how  they  may  prosper  and  lay  up  a  competence]  and  then  if  he 
look  to  God,  he  may  see  himself  fit  to  wed  a  good  man's  daugh- 
ter. 

The  author  of  Leah  and  Rachel  says : 

If  they  are  women  that  go  .  .  .  paying  their  own  pas- 
sages, I  advise  them  to  sojourn  in  a  house  of  honest  repute,  for 
by  their  good  carriage,  they  may  advance  themselves  in  mar- 
riage, by  their  ill,  overthrow  their  fortunes;  and  altho  loose 
persons  seldom  live  long  unmarried  if  free,  yet  they  match 
with  as  dissolute  as  themselves,  and  never  live  handsomely  or 
are  ever  respected. 

The  agent  for  Carolina  wrote: 

Most  of  the  West  India  settlements  will  not  receive  women 
convicts.  If  you  resolve  to  send  them  to  Carolina,  I  have  a 
ship  bound  thither  that  will  carry  them  at  the  usual  rate.  .  . 
What  reception  they  will  find  there  I  cannot  say,  tho  it  will  be 
better  than  elsewhere. 

The  agent  of  Massachusetts  said  that  criminals  would 
be  willingly  accepted  in  Virginia,  Maryland,  etc. 
Many  of  the  women  that  came  to  America  as  servants 
had  a  shady  past.  But  the  continent  had  no  very  warm 
welcome  for  women  convicts.  As  an  inducement  to 
migration  to  Carolina  the  following  was  written  in 
1666: 

If  any  maid  or  single  woman  have  a  desire  to  go  over,  they  will 
think  themselves  in  the  golden  age,  when  men  paid  a  dowry  for 
their  wives;  for  if  they  be  but  civil,  and  under  fifty  years  of 
age,  some  honest  man  or  other,  will  purchase  them  for  their 
wives. 

The  significance  of  the  official  stimulation  of  female 
migration  is  strikingly  portrayed  in  the  words  of  a 
Catawba  chief  who  begged  for  the  life  of  a  white  wo- 
man that  had  incited  Cherokees  to  steal  horses  in  Vir- 


252       The  American  Fainily -Colonial  Period 

ginia.  l^he  chief  said  he  was  "always  sorry  to  lose  a 
woman ;  that  the  loss  of  one  woman  might  be  the  loss  of 
many  lives,  because  one  woman  might  be  the  mother  of 
many  children." 

In  1738  a  minister  in  Georgia  wrote  that  it  was  a 
good  time  to  send  some  unmarried  women  to  Ebenezer. 
A  letter  of  the  Salzburgers  at  Ebenezer  confirms  the 
assertion.     They  would  like  to  have 

Some  unmarried  Christian  Salzburger  women  or  other  honest 
members  of  the  female  sex  who  it  is  hoped  would  not  regret 
to  marry  here  and  likewise  to  establish  an  orderly  household. 
Hitherto  the  young  bachelors  have  endured  much  disorder  in 
their  dwellings  rather  than  marry  such  persons  in  whom  they 
did  not  discern  the  token  of  a  genuine  fear  of  God  and  an  ex- 
ceptionally honest  life. 

Of  a  supply  of  German  servants  it  was  stated: 

Those  delivered  Mr.  Bolzins  were  families  in  which  there  were 
many  unmarried  young  women,  the  congregation  of  Salzburgers 
desired  they  might  be  left  there,  there  being  many  unmarried 
men  and  no  unmarried  women.  (They  believed  that  several 
would  take  them  for  wives. 

Again  Oglethorpe  wrote : 

The  first  measures  for  us  as  trustees  to  take  is  after  support- 
ing religion  to  encourage  marriage  and  the  rearing  up  of  chil- 
dren. Here  are  a  great  number  of  married  people  and  yet 
their  is  now  in  this  place  only  above  700  men  more  than  there 
are  women  most  of  these  would  marry  if  they  could  get  wives. 
The  sending  over  single  women  without  familys  that  could 
protect  them  might  be  attended  with  indecencys  but  the  giving 
passage  to  the  wives,  sisters,  and  daughters  of  recruits,  and  a 
small  maintenance  till  they  go  on  board  would  be  a  remedy  to 
this  and  much  the  cheapest  way  of  peopling  the  country  since 
after  their  arrival  they  are  no  further  expense,  for  their  hus- 
bands can  maintain  them.  We  have  found  out  also  that  the 
married  soldiers  live  easiest  many  of  them  having  turned  out 
very  industrious  planters. 

Of  the  city  of  the  South,  Charleston,  on  the  eve  of 


Southern   Courtship  and  Marriage  253 

the  Revolution,  it  is  told  that  mesalliances  sometimes 
occurred  but  were  regarded  with  horror.  One  young 
lady  wedded  the  coachman.  An  old  servant  stabbed 
the  fellow  to  death.  The  unfortunate  girl  (said  to  have 
been  weak-minded)  and  her  child  fell  to  a  lower  social 
level. 

The  family  pride  of  the  South  early  grew  into  eco- 
nomic marriages  or  marriages  determined  by  other 
social  considerations.  As  early  as  1655  while  Virginia 
and  Maryland  were  the  only  southern  colonies  fathers 
were  giving  portions  with  their  daughters,  "so  that 
many  coming  out  of  England  have  raised  themselves 
to  good  fortunes  there  merely  by  matching  with  maidens 
born  in  the  country." 

In  Maryland,  1679,  Sara  Ford,  a  Quakeress  widow, 
leased  land  to  a  man  on  condition  that  "he  provide  and 
allow  for  her  three  children  .  .  .  lodging  and 
washing,  housing,  apparel,  meat  and  drink,  for  .  .  . 
seven  whole  years  from  date,  and  .  .  .  that  he  will 
teach  or  cause  to  be  taught,  her  said  children  to  read 
and  write  according  and  so  far  as  their  capacitys  will 
attain  within  the  time  and  term  aforesaid."  He  was 
so  far  in  loco  parentis  that  he  probably  thought  he 
might  as  well  go  all  the  way.  At  any  rate  he  married 
the  widow. 

That  Virginia  was  familiar  with  economic  marriage 
is  suggested  by  one  wedding  effusion  with  the  verse 
"Here  no  sordid  interest  binds."  The  marriage  settle- 
ment is  illustrated  in  the  following  letters  from  Vir- 
ginia. 

May  27,  1764. 

Dear  Sir:  My  son,  Mr.  John  Walker,  having  informed  me 
of  his  intention  to  pay  his  addresses  to  your  daughter  Eliza- 
beth, if  he  should  be  agreeable  to  yourself,  lady,  and  daughter, 
it  may  not  be  amiss  to  inform  you  what  I  think  myself  able  to 


254       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

afford  for  their  support  in  case  of  an  union.  My  affairs  are  in 
an  uncertain  state;  but  I  will  promise  one  thousand  pounds,  to 
be  paid  in  the  year  1765,  and  one  thousand  pounds  to  be  paid  in 
the  year  176D;  and  the  further  sum  of  two  thousand  pounds  I 
promise  to  give  him,  but  the  uncertainty  of  my  present  affairs 
prevents  my  fixing  on  a  time  of  payment  -  the  above  sums  are 
all  to  be  in  money  or  lands  and  other  effects  at  the  option  of 
my  said  son,  John  Walker.     I  am.  Sir,  j^our  humble  servant, 

John  Walker. 
Col.  Bernard  Moore  esq.,  in  King  William. 

May  28,  1764. 
Dear  Sir:  Your  son,  Mr.  John  Walker,  applied  to  me  for 
leave  to  make  his  addresses  to  my  daughter  Elizabeth.  I  gave 
him  leave,  and  told  him  at  the  same  time  that  my  affairs  were 
in  such  a  state  that  it  was  not  in  my  power  to  pay  him  all  the 
money  this  year  that  I  intended  to  give  my  daughter,  provided 
he  succeeded ;  but  would  give  him  five  hundred  pounds  next 
spring,  and  five  hundred  pounds  more  as  soon  as  I  could  raise 
or  get  the  money;  which  sums,  you  may  depend,  I  will  most 
punctually  pay  to  him.     I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

Bernard  Moore. 

George  Washington  had  given  thought  to  marriage 
conventionalities  for  he  wrote: 

I  have  always  considered  marriage  as  the  most  interesting  event 
of  one's  life,  the  foundation  of  happiness  or  misery.  To  be 
instrumental  therefore  in  bringing  two  people  together,  w^ho  are 
indifferent  to  each  other,  and  may  soon  become  objects  of  dis- 
gust, or  to  prevent  a  union  which  is  prompted  by  affection  of 
the  mind,  is  what  I  never  could  reconcile  with  reason. 

A  North  Carolina  illustration  of  the  mercenary  in- 
terest in  marriage  is  contained  in  a  letter  written  in 
1762  by  a  gentleman  in  that  colony  to  a  friend  in  Mary- 
land. The  old  governor,  aged  seventy-eight,  had  fallen 
in  love  with  a  girl  of  fifteen  of  good  family  and  for- 
tune. Her  parents  persuaded  her  to  marry  the  govern- 
or tho  she  reciprocated  the  love  of  a  certain  youth.  But 
the  governor  signed  away  all  his  property  to  his  son. 


Southern   Courtship  and  Marriage  255 

The  girl's  friends  found  out  this  calamity  and  she  mar- 
ried the  youth.  When  the  governor  came  he  was  full 
of  rage. 

In  South  Carolina,  eighteenth  century  marriage  no- 
tices often  mentioned  "a  large  fortune"  as  one  of  the 
lady's  qualifications."^  In  Charleston  on  the  eve  of  the 
Revolution   marriages  were   preceded   by  settlements 

duly  drawn.     "So-and-so  to  Miss ,  a  most  amiable 

young  lady  with  £10,000  to  her  fortune"  was  a  very- 
common  form  of  marriage  notice.  Some  notices  were 
more  elaborate. 

In  the  southern  colonies  notwithstanding  the  eco- 
nomic forces  sentiment  seems  to  have  figured  more 
largely  in  marriage  alliances  than  in  New  York  and 
New  England.  Women's  interests  were  guarded.  In 
the  making  of  marriages  it  seems  to  have  been  assumed 
as  a  matter  of  course  that  the  widow  would  be  left  in 
possession  of  everything  as  the  custodian  of  the  chil- 
dren. 

The  marriage  contract  was  as  common  in  seventeenth 
century  Virginia  as  it  was  in  England.  Some  of  these 
agreements  reserved  to  the  woman  her  entire  property. 
Such  was  perhaps,  always  the  case  when  the  bride-to-be 
was  a  widow  with  children  whose  first  husband  had  left 
her  his  estate  in  fee  simple.  In  a  marriage  contract  be- 
tween John  Hirsch  and  Elizabeth  Alford,  of  Lower 
Norfolk  County,  1675,  it  was  provided  that  the  hus- 
band should  not  "meddle"  with  his  wife's  property  and 
that  she  should  be  fully  authorized  to  manage  and  sell 
it.  She  retained  also  the  right  to  the  proceeds  of  such 
goods  as  she  should  export.  She  also  reserved  the  right 
to  bequeath  her  estate  as  she  chose.     In  a  bond  of  1750 

13^  Salley.  Marriage  Notices  in  the  South  Carolina  Gazette  and  its  Suc- 
cessors, 8  ff;     Ravenel.  Charleston,  the  Place  and  the  People,  165-166. 


256       The  Ajuerican  Family -Colonial  Period 

the  groom  and  his  guardian  gave  security  of  fifty 
pounds  that  the  marriage  would  take  place  if  there  was 
no  lawful  impediment. 

Seventeenth  century  Virginia  records  at  least  one  in- 
stance where  a  woman  contracted  not  to  marry  any  one 
but  the  other  party  to  the  pact  tho  apparently  not  pledg- 
ing herself  absolutely  to  him.  Sarah  Harrison,  after 
"cordially  promising"  thus,  married  another  man.  And 
to  increase  the  flagrancy  of  her  wantonness  she  persist- 
ently refused  in  the  marriage  service  to  pledge  herself 
to  "obey."    She  was  married  without  that  promise. 

Colonial  courtship  was  no  simple  matter.  Alsop 
said  of  Maryland  in  1666: 

He  that  intends  to  court  a  Maryland  girl  must  have  something 
more  than  the  tautologies  of  a  longwinded  speech  to  carry  on 
his  design,  or  else  he  may  (for  ought  I  know)  fall  under  the 
contempt  of  her  frown. 

One  Maryland  cavalier  that  tarried  too  long  making 
an  impression,  as  he  thought,  on  a  fair  damsel  found 
that  she  had  thoroly  whitewashed  his  black  charger 
during  his  stay.  One  maiden  that  threw  her  suitor's 
hat  into  the  fire  saw  him  fling  her  bonnet  after  it  and 
ultimately  capitulated.  The  colonial  records  of  1657 
show  a  courtship  agreement  in  which  a  man  undertook 
to  leave  his  stepdaughter  at  a  certain  man's  house  where 
her  expenses  were  to  be  paid  by  a  young  man  who  was 
to  have  the  privilege  of  courting  her  there  in  order  to 
settle  a  difficulty  about  a  promise  of  marriage  alleged 
to  have  been  made  by  her  and  a  rape  committed  by  him 
on  her. 

A  writer  on  colonial  Culpepper  County,  Virginia, 
remarks  that  young  people  did  not  make  love  till  their 
fathers  had  arranged  the  preliminaries.  Virginia  vouths 
prosecuted  their  love  afifairs  in  fine  style.    They  took  up 


Southern   Courtship  and  Marriage  257 

the  quest  on  their  good  steeds.  The  poetic  souls  wrote 
love  verses  to  their  charmers  and  published  them  in  the 
Virginia  Gazette. 

The  ruffianly  Governor  Nicholson  proceeded  other- 
wise. In  a  right  Oriental  manner  he  demanded  the 
hand  of  a  young  girl  and  finding  no  favor  with  her  or 
her  parents  threatened  the  lives  of  father  and  mother 
"with  mad  furious  distracted  speech."  The  brother  of 
Commissary  Blair  was  a  would-be  suitor.  His  excel- 
lency assailed  Blair  insanely:  "Sir,  your  brother  is  a 
villain,  and  you  have  betrayed  me;"  and  he  swore  re- 
venge on  the  whole  family.  He  vowed  that  if  the  girl 
married  any  rival  he  would  cut  the  throat  of  bride- 
groom, minister,  and  justice  that  issued  the  license. 

A  Staunton  man  in  1764  set  about  courtship  more  dis- 
creetly.    He  wrote: 

I  intend  to  call  .  .  .  when  down  that  I  may  no  longer 
worship  a  shadow  but  either  banish  the  idol  or  admire  the  fair, 
therefore  must  request  you  to  let  me  know  by  the  first  con- 
veyance the  name  of  the  charmer  and  whether  the  elder  or  the 
younger  of  the  two  sisters  that  bears  the  amiable  character 
of  being  the  most  worthy  of  her  sex,  I  shall  likewise  reconnoitre 
the  fair  enthusiast  on  this  side  of  the  stream,  and  by  the  assist- 
ance of  our  mutual  friend  Joel  perhaps  I  may  know  how  far  my 
addresses  there  w^ould  be  agreeable. 

In  South  Carolina  at  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury young  girls  received  beaus  at  three  o'clock  expect- 
ing them  to  leave  about  six  as  many  families  retired  at 
seven  in  winter  and  seldom  sat  up  in  summer  beyond 
eight.  It  is  hard  to  realize  how  different  life  must 
have  been  when  artificial  lights  were  almost  negligible 
and  screen  wire  was  unknown.  It  may  be  that  the 
usage  described  belonged  as  did  its  narrator  in  the 
Puritan  group,  which  was  ridiculed  by  the  neighbors. 

John  Wesley  in   Georgia  became  entangled   in   the 


2^8       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

web  of  love.  He  was  charmed  by  a  designing  damsel; 
but,  warned  by  his  friends  and  the  Moravians,  broke 
the  engagement.  Within  eight  days  she  married  an- 
other man.  Then  came  the  famous  episode  of  scandal 
to  which  reference  will  be  made  later. 
A  colonial  traveler  wrote  thus: 

Young  women  are  affable  with  young  men  in  America,  and  mar- 
ried women  are  reserved,  and  their  husbands  are  not  as  famil- 
iar with  the  girls  as  they  were  when  bachelors.  If  a  young 
man  were  to  take  it  into  his  head  that  his  betrothed  should  not 
be  free  and  gay  in  her  social  intercourse,  he  would  run  the  risk 
of  being  discarded,  incur  the  reputation  of  jealousy,  and  would 
find  it  very  difficult  to  get  married.  Yet  if  a  single  woman 
were  to  play  the  coquette,  she  would  be  regarded  with  con- 
tempt. As  this  innocent  freedom  between  the  sexes  diminishes 
in  proportion  as  society  loses  its  purity  and  simplicity  of  man- 
ners, as  is  the  case  in  cities,  I  desire  sincerely  that  our  good 
Virginia  ladies  may  long  retain  their  liberty  entire. 


XV.     REGULATION  AND  SOLEMNIZATION 

OF  MARRIAGE  IN  THE  SOUTHERN 

COLONIES 

Owing  to  the  presence  of  various  sects  and  national- 
ities in  the  colonial  South,  marriage  came  under  vary- 
ing control. 

Church  of  England  bigotry  is  most  conspicuous  in 
Virginia,  Maryland,  and  North  Carolina.  In  Virginia 
throughout  the  colonial  period  the  ceremonial  of  the 
Church  of  England  was  prescribed  by  law.  In  Mary- 
land Episcopal  reaction  gradually  abrogated  optional 
civil  marriage,  which  had  been  allowed  under  the  Cath- 
olic proprietors,  and  finally  in  1777  saddled  upon  the 
people  compulsory  ecclesiastical  marriage  which  con- 
tinued to  prevail  there  through  the  national  period.  In 
North  Carolina  initial  tolerance  was  similarly  abro- 
gated during  the  colonial  period.  In  the  two  southern- 
most colonies  Episcopal  rites  were  established  by  law 
but  free  civil  or  religious  celebration  worked  itself  in. 

The  intolerance  exhibited  by  the  state  church  in  this 
particular  was  directly  and  indirectly  an  economic  phe- 
nomenon. It  was  due  to  clerical  eagerness  for  mar- 
riage fees  and  to  the  desire  to  fortify  the  prestige  of  the 
established  church,  that  mossy  prop  of  an  outworn 
social  order,  destined  to  recede  before  the  non-conform- 
ist churches  of  capitalism.  Stalwart  non-conformists 
or  Catholics  sharply  fought  or  defiantly  ignored  its 
marriage  requirements  even  at  the  risk  of  illegitimacy. 

How  crassly  material  was  the  spirit  that  prompted 


260       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

the  ecclesiastical  bigotry  is  evident  from  the  frequently 
low  character  of  the  clergy  of  the  establishment.  The 
Episcopal  church  in  Maryland  was  a  disgrace  and 
"Maryland  parson"  was  an  epithet  of  contempt.  "They 
extorted  marriage  fees  from  the  poor  by  breaking  off  in 
the  middle  of  the  service,  and  refusing  to  continue  until 
they  were  paid."  In  Virginia  there  was  a  penalty  for 
exacting  more  than  the  legal  fee  for  marriage  or  banns. 

Ecclesiastical  control  of  the  sort  described  was  a  tem- 
porary anachronism.  Save  in  Maryland,  the  civil  cere- 
mony was  recognized,  tho  with  restrictions.  Marriage 
was  already  a  civil  contract. 

Some  idea  of  the  strictness  with  which  the  law  hedged 
the  entrance  to  matrimony  may  be  gained  from  the  fol- 
lowing excerpts  from  colonial  laws  and  citations  of 
colonial  incidents. 

In  Maryland  in  1638  a  couple  was  married  by  license 
under  bond  that  the  man  was  not  precontracted  and  that 
no  lawful  impediment  existed.  Many  like  bonds  have 
been  preserved.  The  1640  act  on  marriage  ordained 
that 

No  partie  may  solemnize  marriage  with  any  woman  afore  the 
banes  three  days  before  published  in  some  chappell  or  other 
place  of  the  county  where  public  instnts  are  used  to  be  notified 
or  else  afore  oath  made  and  caution  entred  in  the  county  court 
that  neither  partie  is  apprentice  or  ward  or  precontracted  or 
within  the  forbidden  degrees  of  consanguinity  or  under  gov- 
ermt,  of  parents  or  tutors  and  certificate  of  such  oath  and  cau- 
tion taken  from  the  judge  or  register  of  the  court  upon  paine 
of  fine  and  recompense  to  the  parties  aggrieved. 

The  act  of  1658  enforced  banns  in  all  cases.  In  1662  a 
new  act  was  aimed  against  clandestine  marriages.  The 
option  of  governor's  or  lieutenant-general's  license  in- 
stead of  banns  is  allowed  in  this  act.     One  hundred 


Solemnization  of  Marriage  in  the  South       261 

pounds  of  tobacco  was  fixed  as  the  legal  marriage  fee. 
By  1673  Maryland  had  become  the  haven  for  runaway 
Virginia  couples.  The  Pocomoke  boundary  lured 
many  eastern  shore  Virginians  for  whom  love  did  not 
run  smooth  at  home.  The  Virginia  assembly  of  1673 
initiated  negotiations  with  the  neighboring  government 
in  respect  to  this  evil.  A  Maryland  proclamation  of 
1685  notes  that 

Severall  great  damages  and  Inconveniences  have  and  doe  daily 
happen  by  the  private  and  clandestine  marrying  of  strangers 
and  others  comeing  into  this  province  from  Virginia,  and  other 
neighboring  parts,  to  the  greate  irreparable  griefe  trouble  and 
disquiett  of  the  parents  and  guardians,  overseers,  masters  or 
dames  .  .  .  and  also  to  the  great  dishonor  of  and  re- 
flection upon  the  government. 

Marriage   to   strangers   from   Virginia,   etc.,   without    • 
Maryland  license  was  accordingly  prohibited. 

In  1 75 1  a  former  teacher  came  to  Frederick  in  the 
role  of  a  minister.  His  right  to  the  title  was  disputed 
and  the  rector  applied  for  an  injunction  to  prevent  him 
from  solemnizing  marriage.  The  court  did  not  grant  it 
but  told  the  person  in  question  to  marry  none  but 
Germans."^ 

The  Maryland  colony  passed  an  act  requiring  the  ^ 
registration  of  marriages,  births,  and  burials  with  pen- 
alty for  infringement.  The  law  was  no  doubt  subject  to 
neglect.  In  All  Saints  Parish  in  1742  it  was  ordered 
that  a  notice  be  posted  at  the  church  door  to  inform  the 
parishioners  to  come  forthwith  "and  have  all  former  and 
future  births,  marriages,  and  burials  put  on  the  parish 
records  or  they  will  be  prosecuted  as  the  law  directs." 

Marriage  was  highly  esteemed  in  Maryland.    In  one  . 
locality  after  marriage  the  bridal  party  was  often  con- 

136  Society  for  History  of  Germans  in  Maryland.  Sixth  Annual  Report,  20. 


262       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

veyed  from  place  to  place  to  be  entertained  by  everyone 
before  settling  down  at  home.^^^ 

In  Virginia  the  earliest  statutes  show  a  notable  ad- 
vance over  the  custom  of  the  motherland.  The  admin- 
istration of  marriage  law  was  gradually  instrusted  to 
lay  tribunals.  Moreover  marriage  began  to  be  hedged 
by  statute  and  was  no  longer  left  to  the  hazards  of  cus- 
tom. Banns  or  license,  parental  consent,  certificate,  and 
registration  were  presently  introduced.  Marriage  be- 
came substantially  a  civil  contract  long  before  the  law 
avowed  such  a  purport. 

An  act  of  the  Commonwealth  period  shows  that  min- 
isters had  ignored  the  law  in  respect  to  license  or  banns 
and  a  heavy  penalty  is  attached  to  such  misconduct  in 
the  future.  The  first  act  of  the  Restoration  requires 
license  or 

Thrice  publication  according  to  the  prescription  of  the  rubric 
in  the  common  prayer  booke,  which  injoynes  that  if  the  persons 
to  be  marryed  dwell  in  severall  parishes  the  banes  must  be 
asked  in  both  parishes,  and  that  the  curate  of  one  parish  shall 
not  solemnize  the  matrimony  untill  he  have  a  certificate  from 
the  curate  of  the  other  parish,  that  the  banes  have  been  there 
thrice  published  and  noe  objection  made. 

There  seems  to  have  been  difficulty  in  enforcing  the 
legal  restrictions  on  marriage.  A  proclamation  was  is- 
sued in  1672  under  which  it  was  declared  that  the  cere- 
mony was  to  be  invalid  unless  attended  by  license  or 
banns. 

A  law  of  1 66 1  exhibits  the  folly  of  allowing  to  the 
governor  the  perquisite  of  license  granting  as  a  source 
of  income.  "Whereas  many  times  lycences  are  granted 
and  the  persons  are  marryed  out  of  the  parishes,  which 
lycences  have  been  usually  granted  by  the  governor, 
whose  knowledge  of  persons  cannot  possibly  extend 

i37Ridgely.     The  Old  Brick  Churches  of  Maryland,  109-uo. 


Solemnization  of  Marriage  in  the  South      263 

over  the  whole  country,"  therefore  persons  desiring  to 
be  married  by  license  must  give  bond  that  there  is  no 
lawful  impediment.  The  clerk  will  then  write  the  li- 
cense which  will  be  signed  by  a  justice  or  by  a  deputy 
of  the  governor.  Marriage  bonds  were  sometimes 
signed  by  the  bridegroom  and  a  friend  but  in  numerous 
cases  it  appears  that  only  the  friends  signed.  This  form 
of  marriage  must  have  been  a  rather  aristocratic  lux- 
ury. Banns  were  cheaper.  Sometimes  the  would-be 
bridegroom  posted  at  the  court-house  door  a  notice  of 
his  purpose  of  marriage.  The  act  of  1705  requires 
bond  in  all  cases  and  requires  parental  consent  only  in 
the  case  of  minors. 

In  1662  a  prominent  citizen  eloped  with  a  twelve- 
year-old  heiress  from  a  conspicuous  eastern  shore  fam- 
ily while  she  was  staying  at  the  home  of  Captain  Jones 
receiving  education.  The  couple  fled  across  the  bay  in 
a  sailboat  to  a  place  where  they  were  not  known.  In 
1696  an  ''act  for  the  prevention  of  clandestine  mar- 
riages" was  passed.  According  to  it  "many  great  and 
grievous  mischeifes  have  arisen  and  dayly  doe  arise 
by  clandestine  and  secret  marriages  to  the  utter  ruin 
of  many  heirs  and  heiresses"  and  "the  laws  now  in 
force  ...  do  inflict  too  small  a  punishment  for  so 
heinous  and  great  an  ofifence."  A  minister  ignoring 
banns  or  license  is  hereafter  to  be  imprisoned  "for  one 
whole  year  without  bayle  or  mainprize  and  shall  for- 
feitt  and  pay  the  sume  of"  five  hundred  pounds,  half  of 
which  goes  to  the  informer.  A  girl  between  twelve  and 
sixteen  contracting  irregular  marriage  forfeits  during 
coverture  her  inheritance  to  the  next  of  kin.  If  wid- 
owed she  regains  the  inheritance  or  it  goes  to  those  that 
should  have  been  entitled  to  it  "in  case  this  act  had 
never  been  made."    The  act  of  1705  declares  that  if  any 


264       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

minister,  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  law,  leaves  the 
colony  and  marries  Virginians  without  license  or  pub- 
lication, the  penalty  shall  be  the  same  as  if  the  offence 
had  been  committed  in  the  province. 

The  minister  of  every  parish  was  required  to  keep  a 
book  and  in  it  to  register  every  christening,  wedding, 
and  burial.  The  church  wardens  and  ministers  had 
the  duty  of  making  an  annual  return  to  the  quarter 
court  of  all  marriages  occurring.  The  act  of  1642  re- 
quired that  the  report  be  made  to  the  "commander  of 
every  monethly  court."  The  Proclamation  of  1672  re- 
quired the  return  of  licenses  (at  least  in  certain  cases) 
to  Jamestown  for  final  record.  When  Williamsburg 
became  the  capital  returns  of  registration  were  to  be 
made  thither. 

Marriages  within  the  "levitical  degrees  prohibited 
by  the  laws  of  England"  were  forbidden.  Offenders 
were  subject  to  separation  and  the  children  were  ille- 
gitimate. Fines  might  be  imposed  at  discretion  of  the 
court.  There  were  cases  of  proposed  or  actual  mar- 
riage contrary  to  the  prohibition.  All  dispensations  of 
Rome  were  voided  in  the  colony .^^® 

Virginia  laws  did  not  attempt  to  regulate  courtship 
.  and  "sinful  dalliance"  in  New  England  fashion.  But 
Wyatt,  one  of  the  early  governors,  issued  a  proclama- 
tion aimed  chiefly  at  women  forbidding  them  to  con- 
tract to  two  men  at  once,  for 

Women  are  yet  scarce  and  in  much  request,  and  this  offence  has 
become  very  common,  whereby  great  disquiet  arose  between  par- 
ties, and  no  small  trouble  to  the  government.  .  ,  [Such 
conduct  must  cease  and]  every  minister  should  give  notice  in 
his  church  that  what  man  or  woman  soever  should  use  any 
word  or  speech  tending  to  a  contract  of  marriage  to  two  sev- 
eral persons  at  one  time     ...     as  might  entangle  or  breed 

138  Barton.     Virginia  Colonial  Decisions,  vol.  i,  R  55. 


Solemnization  of  Marriage  in  the  South      265 

scruples  in  their  consciences,  should,  for  such  their  offence, 
either  undergo  corporal  correction,  or  be  punished  by  fine  or 
otherwise,  according  to  .  .  .  quality  of  the  person  so  of- 
fending.^^^ 

There  is  no  proof  that  any  maid  was  ever  thus  cor- 
porally corrected ;  but  a  man  was  whipped  for  engaging 
to  two  women  at  once. 

William  and  Mary  College  in  colonial  days  had  a 
regulation  on  the  subject  of  marriage  of  faculty  mem- 
bers. Certain  professors  were  bent  on  marrying.  Com- 
plaint is  made  that  two  have  "lately  married  and  taken 
up  their  residence"  out  of  bounds  whereby  they  are  in- 
capacitated for  attending  to  their  duties.  Accordingly 
"all  professors  and  masters  hereafter  to  be  appointed" 
are  subject  to  the  condition  that  upon  marriage  "his 
professorship  be  immediately  vacated."  It  was  doubt- 
less not  with  the  same  intent  that  the  Assembly  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Revolution  laid  a  tax  of  forty  shillings 
on  each  marriage  license.  The  plebeian  banns  were 
still  available. 

Marriage  notices  in  the  Virginia  Gazette  at  the  time 
of  the  Revolution  are  accompanied  by  a  few  verses. 
Also  the  papers  might  be  used  to  prevent  marriage. 
An  advertisement  of  the  later  eighteenth  century  warns 
all  ministers  from  marrying  a  youth  "as  he  is  under 
age,  and  this  shall  indemnify  them  for  so  doing." 

A  Virginia  wedding  was  a  notable  event  involving 
much  ceremony  and  great  preparations  and  engaging 
the  attention  of  the  neighborhood.  The  long  journeys 
of  guests  and  the  scarcity  of  social  contacts  in  early  days 
demanded  in  the  wedding  a  great  event.  The  occasion 
seems  to  have  been,  in  the  first  century  of  the  colony, 
one  of  hilarious  abandon.     In  the  early  days  the  ccre- 

^39  Cooke.     Virginia,  149. 


266       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

mony  seems  to  have  been  heralded  by  a  lively  fusillade 
but  this  serious  waste  of  powder  was  restricted  if  not 
forbidden  in  years  when  the  Indians  were  menacing. 
In  1656  we  find  this  item :  "Mr.  Bushrod  what  do  you 
mean  by  suffering  your  tobacco  to  run  up  so  high? 
Why  do  you  not  topp  itt?"  "Because  my  overseer  has 
gone  to  a  wxddinge  without  my  consent,  and  I  know  not 
how  to  help  it."  In  1666  when  a  Dutch  man-of-war 
ravaged  the  shipping  the  guard-ship  was  practically 
useless  because  the  captain  was  ashore  at  a  wedding. 

Seemingly  it  was  not  always  customary  for  the  groom 
to  procure  the  wedding  ring.  In  1655  M^*-  H-  West- 
gate  left  a  hogshead  of  tobacco  to  purchase  two  wed- 
ding rings  for  his  daughters.  The  rings  were  bought 
in  England.  In  the  later  years  of  the  colony  when 
there  was  a  greater  supply  of  clergy  the  bride  had  the 
choice  of  the  officiating  priest. 

North  Carolina  made  provision  for  license,  banns, 
and  registration.  The  stipend  for  licenses  was  a  lucra- 
tive perquisite  for  the  governor.  Royal  instructions  in 
1730  to  the  governor  declare: 

To  the  end  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  London 
may  take  place  in  that  our  province  so  far  as  may  be  we  do 
think  fit  that  j^ou  give  all  countenance  and  encouragement  to 
the  exercise  of  the  same  excepting  only  the  collating  the  bene- 
fices granting  licenses  for  marriages  and  probate  of  v^^iUs  which 
we  have  reserved  to  you  our  governor  and  to  the  commander 
in  chief  of  our  said  province  for  the  time  being  as  far  as  by  law 
we  may. 

There  is  recorded  an  objection  of  Governor  Tryon  to 
court  clerks'  issuing  of  licenses  save  on  his  blank.  He 
wanted  the  emolument. 

In  1715  it  was  enacted  that  the  "inhabitants  and  free- 
men of  each  precinct"  are  to  elect  three  freeholders, 


Solemnization  of  Marriage  in  the  South      267 

one  of  whom  the  governor  or  commander-in-chief  is  to 
choose  as  register  of  deeds.  Until  there  be  a  clerk  of 
the  parish  church  the  register  is  to  record  betrothals 
and  marriages.  Every  "master  or  mistress  of  a  family 
who  shall  neglect  to  register  the  birth  or  death  of  any 
person  born  or  dying  within  his  or  her  house  or  planta- 
tion; and  every  married  man  who  shall  neglect  to  remit 
to  the  said  register  a  certificate  of  his  marriage  and 
cause  the  same  to  be  registered,  for  longer  than  one 
month"  must  pay  a  shilling  a  month  for  the  delay,  total 
not  to  exceed  twenty  shillings.  One  act  for  the  govern- 
ment of  Carolina  provided  that  births,  christenings, 
marriages,  and  burials  were  to  be  registered  in  each 
parish  (except  in  case  of  negroes,  mulattoes,  and  Indian 
slaves).  Any  person  reasonably  desiring  was  to  have 
access  to  such  records.  Royal  instructions  in  1730  re- 
quired the  governor  to  keep  account  of  births,  deaths, 
and  burials.  An  act  of  1748  fixed  fees  for  registry  and 
certificate  of  births,  burials,  and  marriage  and  imposed 
a  penalty  for  refusal  to  render  the  service  at  that  price 
or  for  charging  more. 

The  following  Carolina  episode  of  1713  savors  of 
New  England: 

Whereas  we  are  informed  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  John  Urmston  that 
Mr.  Richard  French  have  and  doe  take  upon  him  to  administer 
ye  holy  sacrt.  of  baptisme  and  to  marry  persons  without  being 
duly  qualified  for  the  same,  it  is  ordered  by  this  board  that  the 
provost  marshall  doe  sumons  ye  said  Richard  French  to  appeare 
at  ye  next  councill  to  be  holden  at  Capt.  Hecklefield  on  the 
3d  day  of  the  next  genii  court  to  answer  to  ye  said  compit  and 
that  he  forbid  ye  said  French  to  marry  or  baptize  any  persons  in 
ye  meanwhile. 

South  Carolina  early  had  provision  for  registration 
of  marriage.     The  act  of  1704  required  registration  of 


268       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

births,  christenings,  marriages,  and  burials,  except  those 
of  "negroes,  Mullatoes,  and  Indian  slaves"  and  pre- 
scribed a  fine  for  wedding  contrary  to  the  table  of  for- 
bidden degrees. 

In  Maryland  the  Quakers  were  strong  and  practiced 
their  usual  rites.  The  question  of  marriage,  involving 
legitimacy  and  inheritance,  early  was  a  serious  one  for 
them.  They  exercised  great  caution  with  a  view  to  pre- 
venting the  union  of  persons  that  already  had  partners 
in  the  old  country.  They  required  two  or  three  appli- 
cations to  the  meetings  so  as  to  secure  publicity  and 
avoid  anything  "contrary  to  the  order  of  truth"  or  that 
might  bring  discredit.  A  proposal  of  marriage  in  1678 
is  recorded  as  follows: 

Obadiah  Judkins  and  Obedience  Jenner,  acquainted  this  meet- 
ing, and  also  the  women's  meeting,  with  their  intentions  of  com- 
ing together  as  husband  and  wife,  according  to  the  order  of 
truth;  now  inasmuch  as  the  young  woman  is  but  lately  come 
forth  of  England,  and  Friends  noe  certaine  knowledge  of  her, 
the  advice  of  the  men's  and  women's  meeting  is  that  they  for- 
beare,  and  proceed  noe  further  till  certificate  be  procured  out  of 
England  from  the  meeting  where  she  last  belonged  unto,  of  her 
being  cleere  from  others,  and  as  to  the  manner  of  her  life  and 
conversation,  that  so  the  truth  may  be  kept  cleere  in  all  things; 
both  the  partys  being  willing  to  submit  to  the  same,  and  also  to 
live  apart  in  the  mean  time. 

It  was  not  unusual  to  appoint  a  committee  to  inquire  as 
to  the  freedom  of  the  parties.  Too  many  immigrants 
to  Maryland  had  deserted  their  lawful  spouses;  hence 
the  precautions  of  the  Friends  were  quite  in  order. 

A  list  of  queries  adopted  by  the  yearly  meeting  of 
1725  to  be  answered  by  lower  meetings  includes  the  fol- 
lowing: 

Is  care  taken  and  Friends  advised  that  none  too  nearly  (re- 
lated)   proceed  in  collateral  marriages,  and  that  none  marry 


Solemnization  of  Marriage  in  the  South      269 

within  the  third  degree  of  affinity  and  the  fourth  degree  of 
consanguinity? 

The  Friends  were  especially  disquieted  by  marriages 
of  members  with  outsiders  and  by  hasty  marriage  with- 
out formal  publication  of  the  banns  as  also  by  an  attend- 
ant   evil -the    marriage    of    children    by   priests    and 
magistrates.    William  Dixon  informs  the  meeting 
That  his  daughter-in-law  [probably  stepdaughter]  is  stole  away 
and  married  by  a  priest  in  the  night,  contrary  to  his  and  his 
wife's  minds;  that  he  has  opposed  the  same  and  refused  to  pay 
her  portion,  for  which  he  is  cited  to  appear  before  the  com- 
missary general,  and  now  he  desires  to  know  whether  the  meet- 
ing would  stand  by  him,  if  he  should  sue  the  priest  that  married 
her.     The  meeting  assents. 

Nothing  seems  to  have  distressed  the  Friends  in  Talbot 
more  than  "outgoings"  in  marriage.  To  be  married 
with  a  license  by  a  magistrate  or  by  a  "hireling  priest" 
was  a  reprehensible  abomination.  One  Church  of  Eng- 
land minister  was  specially  obnoxious  on  account  of 
such  services.  At  a  meeting  in  1681  a  committee  ap- 
pointed to  wait  on  the  lord  proprietary  "concerning 
Friends  children  being  taken  away  from  them  and  mar- 
ried by  the  priest  without  their  consent  or  knowledge" 
reported  "that  they  were  treated  very  civilly"  by  the 
proprietor,  who  said  "that  for  the  future  he  would  take 
care  in  all  his  counties  that  the  like  should  be  pre- 
vented." The  evil  continued.  A  quarterly  meeting  in 
1688  recommended  the  disinheritance  of  disobedient 
children.  The  yearly  meeting  confirmed  this  position 
and  recommended  that  "priests  or  magistrates  that  do 
marry  Friends  children  without  their  parents  or  guar- 
dians consent  should  be  prosecuted." 

The  Labadists,  who  had  a  colony  in  Maryland,  were 
in  some  respects  similar  to  the  Friends.     They  were 


270       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

stringent  on  the  subject  of  intermarriage  with  gentiles. 

A  convert  to  the  society  was  expected  to  abandon  his  un- 

regenerate  spouse  when  he  entered  the  fold."° 
The  Virginia  Quakers  exercised  oversight  like  that 

of  their  Maryland  brethren.     A  typical  document  is  as 

follows : 

This  is  to  certify  the  truth  to  all  people  that  A.B.  son  of  R.S., 
and  CD.  daughter  of  J.S.  haveing  intentions  of  marriage  ac- 
cording to  the  ordinance  of  God  and  his  joyning  did  lay  it  before 
the  men  and  weomans  meeting,  before  whom  their  marriage 
was  propounded,  and  then  the  meeting  desired  them  to  waight 
for  a  time,  and  so  they  enquireing  betwixt  the  time  wheather  the 
man  was  free  from  all  other  weomen,  and  shee  free  from  all 
other  men,  so  the  second  time  they  coming  before  the  man  and 
weomans'  meeting,  all  things  being  cleare,  a  meeting  of  the 
people  of  God  was  appointed  for  that  purpose,  wheare  they 
tooke  one  another  in  the  house  of  W.L.  and  in  the  presence  of 
God  and  in  the  presence  of  us  his  people  according  to  the  law 
of  God  and  the  practis  of  the  holly  men  of  God  in  the  scrip- 
tures of  truth  and  they  theare  promising  before  God  and  us  his 
people  to  live  faithfully  togeather  man  and  wife  as  long  as  they 
live,  according  to  Gods  honorable  mariage,  they  theare  setting 

both  their  hands  unto  it  the day  of in  the  yeare . 

and  wee  are  witnesses  of  the  same  whose  names  are  heareunto 
subscribed. 

Parental  consent  is  certified  in  the  following  document: 

This  may  sattisfie  friends  that  I  have  given  my  consent  to 
Moses  Hall  as  concerning  marriage  with  my  daughter  Margrett 
Duke  as  witness  my  hand  this  7  day  of  the  1 1  mo  1707.  Thom- 
as Duke  Senior. 

Other  records  are  as  follows : 

Margaret  Tabbarer  states  in  a  paper  sent  to  the  meeting  that 
her  daughter  had  been  married  to  a  young  man  by  a  Priest, 
and  expresses  her  sorrow  that  she  has  married  that  way. 
Tho:  Hollowell  and  Alic  his  wife  desire  that  their  testimony 

1*0  Howard.     History  of  Matrimonial  Institutions,  vol.  ii,  245,  footnote  2. 


Solemnization  of  Marriage  in  the  South      271 

be  recorded  against  their  childrens  unlawful  behavior  in  being 
married  by  Priests. 

Daniel  Sanbourn  on  behalf  of  the  men's  meeting  in 
Chuckatuck  signed  on  "the  eight  day  of  the  3  mo  in  the 
yeare  1701"  a  certificate  of  disownment  against  "Tho 
Duke"  for  "marrying  one  that  was  not  of  us  and  lick- 
wise  goeing  to  the  hireling  priest."  There  are  other 
protests  and  references  to  disorderly  marriage. 

The  North  Carolina  records  contain  several  instances 
of  the  control  exercised  by  the  Friends  over  the  mar- 
riage of  their  members.  In  this  colony  also,  Friends 
gave  two  notices  of  intended  marriage  and  we  find  note 
of  two  men  appointed  "to  enquire  into  his  life  and  con- 
versation and  clearness  in  respect  of  marriage."  In  one 
locality  a  man's  not  having  paid  his  debts  would  lead 
Quakers  to  refuse  his  request  of  marriage. 

In  Virginia  there  was  to  be  no  marriage  of  servants 
without  certificate  of  master's  consent. 

Servants  procuring  ymselves  to  be  married  without  consent  of 
their  Masters  shall  serve  a  year  and  if  any  being  free  shall 
secretly  marry  wth  a  servant  he  or  she  shall  pay  ye  mr.  of  ye 
Servt  1500  lb.  tobo,  or  a  years  service  and  ye  Servt  shall  serve 
ye  vi^hole  time  and  a  year  after.^*^ 

In  Maryland  free  persons  and  servants  were  prohib- 
ited from  marrying  without  the  express  approval  of 
master  or  mistress.  The  General  Assembly  of  1777 
passed  an  act  prohibiting  ministers,  under  penalty  of 
fifty  pounds,  from  marrying  a  free  person  and  a  servant 
without  consent  of  master  or  mistress. 

A  North  Carolina  statute  forbade  any  one,  under 
penalty  of  five  pounds  to  be  paid  to  the  master,  to  marry 
servants  without  the  written  consent  of  the  master.    All 

^*i  Cooke.  Firffinia,  122-123  ;  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biogra- 
phy, vol.  X,  "Abridgement  of  Laws  of  Virginia,  1694,"  145-146. 


272       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

servants  so  married  were  to  serve  one  year  extra.  Prob- 
ably many  masters  used  their  power  to  prevent  the  mar- 
riage of  servant  women.  This  embargo  must  have  in- 
creased the  number  of  unlawful  unions.  Baptists  seem 
to  have  considered  it  a  hardship.  Just  before  the  Revo- 
lution the  Kehukee  Association  declared  marriages  not 
made  according  to  law  to  be  binding  before  God  and 
that  it  was  not  lawful  to  fellowship  a  member  that 
broke  the  marriage  of  servants. 


XVL    WOMAN'S  PLACE  IN  THE  COLONIAL 

SOUTH 

Southern  "chivalry"  does  not  date  back  to  the  begin- 
nings of  the  South.  It  took  time  for  the  softening  in- 
fluences of  the  genial  climate  and  the  feudalizing  trend 
of  the  broad  expanse  to  prevail.  Seventeenth  century  . 
Virginia  was  bourgeois  rather  than  knightly.  Like 
their  New  England  compeers,  the  founders  of  the  Old 
Dominion  were  prosaic  and  practical.  The  economic 
interest  dominated  and  left  little  room  for  sentiment.  ' 
Women  fared  like  contemporary  English  women  of  the 
middle  class.  Their  lot  was  domestic,  commonplace,  , 
subordinate.  The  early  Virginians  prepared  the  duck- 
ing stool  for  gossiping  women.  At  an  early  day  Betsey 
Tucker  was  ducked  for  making  her  husband's  house 
and  the  neighborhood  uncomfortable  by  her  violent 
tongue.  In  1662  the  Assembly  passed  an  act  to  the 
effect  that  wives  that  brought  judgment  on  their  hus- 
bands for  slander  should  be  punished  by  ducking. 
Bacon  captured  wives  of  loyalists  and  notified  their  hus- 
bands, who  were  with  the  governor,  that  he  intended  to 
place  the  ladies  in  front  of  his  men  in  the  line  of  battle. 
This  was  no  empty  threat  and  the  "Apron  Brigade'' 
saved  him  from  the  fire  of  the  governor's  guns.  The 
man  that  was  thus  guilty  (as  Colonel  Ludwell  put  it) 
of  "ravishing  of  women  from  their  homes  and  hurrying 
them  about  the  country  in  their  rude  camps"  was  a 
wealthy  planter.  Nor  was  His  Excellency  more  chiv- 
alrous.    Governor  Berkeley  spurned  with  vile  insult 


274       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

a  woman  begging  for  her  husband's  pardon  for  his  part 
in  the  insurrection.  We  find  record  also  of  a  rude  in- 
sult to  a  lady  of  a  leading  family  from  a  Virginia  colo- 
nel, member  of  another  leading  family. 

Some  little  feeling  for  womanhood  is  indeed  mani- 
fested in  the  case  of  Grace  Sherwood  who  in  1706  on 
suspicion  of  witchcraft  was  examined  by  a  jury  of 
women  who  reported  her  "neither  like  them,  nor  any 
other  woman  they  knew  of."  She  was  fortunate  in  not 
coming  under  the  Massachusetts  law  authorizing  ex- 
amination by  a  male  "witch  pricker"  but  she  was  ducked 
as  a  suspected  witch.  On  the  whole  her  experience  is 
scarcely  an  exhibit  of  chivalry."^ 

The  accounts  that  Colonel  Byrd  gives  of  his  visits  to 
Virginia  homes  show  sufficiently  the  attitude  toward 
women  in  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century.  "We 
supped  about  nine  and  then  prattled  with  the  ladies." 
"Our  conversation  with  the  ladies  was  like  whip-sylla- 
bub, very  pretty  but  nothing  in  it."  He  jokes  rather 
coarsely  about  Miss  Thekky's  lamentable  maiden  state 
and  refers  to  Mrs.  Chiswell  as  "one  of  those  absolute 
rarities,  a  very  good  old  woman."  Another  man  wrote 
of  the  Virginia  women : 

Most  of  the  women  are  quite  pretty  and  insinuating  in  their 
manner  if  they  find  you  so.  When  you  ask  them  if  they  would 
like  to  have  husbands  they  reply  with  a  good  grace  that  it  is  just 
what  they  desire. 

A  young  Virginia  lady  writes: 

Hannah  and  myself  were  going  to  take  a  long  walk  this  even- 
ing but  were  prevented  by  the  two  horrid  mortals  Mr.  Pinkard 
and  Mr.  Washington,  who  siezed  and  kissed  me  a  dozen  times 
in  spite  of  all  the  resistance  I  could  make.  They  really  think, 
now  they  are  married,  they  are  prevaliged  to  do  anything.     .     . 

1*2  See  Wertenbaker,  Patrician  and  Plebeian  in  Virginia,  82-87 1  Forrest, 
Historical  and  Descriptive  Sketches  of  Norfolk,  Virginia,  464-465. 


Woman's  Place  in  the  South  275 

While  we  were  eating  the  apple-pye  in  bed  -  God  bless  j^ou, 
making  a  great  noise  -  in  came  Mr.  Washington  dressed  in 
Hannah's  short  gown  and  peticoat,  and  seazed  me  and  kissed 
me  twenty  times  in  spite  of  all  the  resistance  I  could  make; 
and  then  Cousin  Molly. 

Evidently  women  had  reached  by  this  time  the  status  of    , 

toys. 

It  was  out  of  such  perspectives  as  those  detailed  that 

"chivalry"  arose.     By  the  time  of  the  Revolution  there 

was  sufficient  recrudescence  of  feudalism  to  cause  an 

atavic  reversion  to  chivalric  standards. 

The  Virginia  gentleman  [says  Wertenbaker]  taught  by  the 
experience  of  many  years,  was  beginning  to  understand  aright 
the  reverence  due  the  nobleness,  the  purity,  the  gentleness  of 
woman.  He  was  learning  to  accord  to  his  wife  the  unstinted 
and  sincere  homage  that  her  character  deserved. 

But  as  we  trace  the  later  history  of  sex  morals  in  the 
South  it  will  become  glaringly  apparent  what  a  ve- 
neered mockery  was  this  boasted  southern  chivalry. 

The  domestic  life  of  women  on  the  old  plantations  ^ 
must  have  been  rather  monotonous.  According  to  trav- 
elers' descriptions  they  did  not  share  largely  in  the 
diversions  of  the  men.  The  subordination  of  woman  is 
illustrated  in  various  ways.  Her  husband  was  respon-  * 
sible  for  her  behavior.  Thus  in  a  Virginia  witch  case 
the  husband  was  under  bond  on  his  wife's  account  and 
upon  her  acquittal  the  bond  was  cancelled.  The  min- 
utes of  the  council  at  Wilmington,  North  Carolina, 
August  31,  1753  contain  the  following: 

Read  the  petition  of  Wm.  Barns  setting  forth  that  his  wife 
having  during  his  absence  retailed  liquors  contrary  to  law  a 
bill  of  indictment  had  been  found  against  him  in  the  county 
court  of  New  Hanover  and  that  he  being  poor  as  well  as  in- 
nocent of  the  said  crime  prayed  that  a  nolle  prosequi  might  be 
entered  in  his  behalf.  ,  .  Attorney  general  was  ordered  to 
enter  a  nolle  prosequi. 


276       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

The  early  Baptists  in  North  Carolina  met  the  penalty 
of  too  great  liberality  to  women  when  a  regular  Bap- 
tist preacher  in  South  Carolina  refused  to  assist  at  an 
ordination  and  rebuked  them  for  letting  women  pray  in 
public.  The  minutes  of  one  Baptist  association  for 
1 77 1  record  that  it  was  not  lawful  for  a  woman  to  vote 
in  conference. 

The  subjection  of  women  was  of  course  coupled  with 
a  legal  claim  on  their  part  upon  the  property  of  the 
husband  and  a  natural  hold  on  the  husband's  considera- 
tion. The  first  will  in  Maryland,  dated  in  the  year 
1638,  is  that  of  William  Smith  in  which  he  leaves  all 
his  goods  to  his  wife.     In  North  Carolina, 

Elizabeth  Bateman  widdow  .  .  ,  of  .  .  .  Jon.  Bate- 
man  declining  her  legacy  given  in  .  .  .  will  and  craving 
to  have  her  third  of  her  deceased  husband's  estate.  Ordered 
that     .     .     .     said  Elizabeth  Bateman  have  her  third. 

In  Virginia  in  the  case  of  Brent  vs.  Brent  the  husband 
was  a  terrible  fellow.  The  wife  was  allowed  a  separate 
maintenance,  being  ill-treated,  and  he  was  to  be  ar- 
rested for  seditious  words.  At  the  general  court  of 
Carolina,  1695,  ''John  Wilson  acknowledged  his  assign- 
ment of  a  warrant  of  right  to  Wm.  Duckenfield  Esqr. 
and  Marget  his  wife  relinquisheth  her  right  of  dower." 
In  Georgia  the  wife's  consent  had  to  be  secured  to  the 
alienation  of  lands  in  which  she  had  an  interest.  Thus 
there  was  a  certain  technical  protection  for  woman  that 
did  in  a  measure  assure  her  property  rights  but  from 
the  standpoint  of  equity  no  amount  of  legal  standing 
could  ofTfset  the  cancellation  of  personality. 

Yet  tho  colonial  usage  kept  woman  in  retirement,  the 
colonial  South  had  notable  women  that  vied  with  their 
assertive  sisters  of  the  North  in  the  world  of  affairs. 
There  was  no  marked  difference  between  the  sections 


Woman's  Place  in  the  South  277 

in  the  extent  to  which  women  took  up  independent  ca- 
reers, or  assumed  responsibilities  beyond  housewifery. 

Maryland  women  of  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth 
century  must  have  possessed  executive  ability  and  intel-  * 
ligence;  for  the  keen  pioneers  generally  appointed  their 
wives,  or  if  unmarried  their  sisters,  as  executors  of  their 
wills.  The  Assembly  of  1671  decided  that  in  case  of  in- 
testacy the  wife  should  be  administrator  if  the  husband 
had  left  no  directions. 

The  first  seventeenth  century  business  woman  in 
Maryland,  and  possibly  in  America,  received  a  license 
from  the  assembly  to  establish  a  printing  press  at  An- 
napolis to  print  official  papers.  This  lady  could  not 
write.  Verlinda  Stone  was  a  woman  of  force  and  cour- 
age. She  wrote  to  Lord  Baltimore  demanding  an  in- 
vestigation of  a  fight  in  which  her  husband  was  wound- 
ed. The  letter  was  sufficiently  business-like  but  ends 
vehemently.  Captain  Cornwallis  refers  to  the  wife  of 
Commissioner  Hawley 

Who  by  her  comportment  in  these  difficult  affairs  of  her  hus- 
band's hath  manifested  as  much  virtue  and  discretion  as  can 
be  expected  from  the  sex  she  ones  whose  industrious  house- 
wifery hath  so  adorned  this  desert,  that  should  his  discourage- 
ments force  him  to  withdraw  himself  and  her,  it  would  not  a 
little  eclipse  the  glory  of  Maryland. 

Margaret  Brent  administered  Leonard  Calvert's  estate. 
She  never  married.  In  1658  she  testified  that  "Thos. 
White,  lately  deceased,  out  of  the  tender  love  and  affec- 
tion he  bore  the  petitioner,  intended  if  he  had  lived  to 
have  married  her,  and  did  by  his  last  will  and  testa- 
ment" leave  her  "his  whole  estate."  She  asserted  her 
right  to  vote  in  official  capacity  as  Calvert's  successor  . 
and  she  conducted  the  colony  through  a  dangerous  situ- 
ation with  ability  and  patience.     In  colonial  NLiryland 


2/8       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

women  began  to  function  in  public  service  as  keepers  of 
ordinaries  and  ferries.  During  the  Revolution  a  woman 
was  postmistress  of  Baltimore. 

In  Virginia,  also,  women  showed  strength  and  abil- 
ity. "Mrs.  Procter,  a  proper  civil,  modest  gentle- 
woman" defended  herself  and  family  for  a  month  after 
the  massacre.  "Lady  Temperance  Yeardly  came  on 
November  i6,  1627  to  .  .  .  Jamestown  and  con- 
firmed the  conveyance  made  by  her  late  husband  .  .  . 
late  governor  ...  to  Abraham  Percy."  James 
Clayton  writing  as  early  as  1688  of  "Observables"  in 
Virginia  mentions  several  "acute  ingenious  gentle- 
women" who  operated  thriving  tobacco  plantations, 
draining  swamps,  raising  cattle,  buying  slaves.  One 
near  Jamestown  was  a  fig-grower. 

In  South  Carolina  women  took  an  active  part  in  all 
sorts  of  affairs  and  seem  to  have  enjoyed  a  certain  stand- 
ing not  gained  by  women  elsewhere  in  the  colonies. 
The  men  often  had  to  be  absent  and  it  was  not  uncom- 
mon for  a  woman  to  be  alone  for  several  months  in 
charge  of  a  great  plantation  with  hundreds  of  slaves 
with  no  white  man  to  assist  her  save  the  overseer. 
Women  often  taught  their  own  children.  Eliza  Lucas 
studied  law  and  while  studying  it  drew  up  two  wills 
and  was  made  trustee  in  another.  '^In  the  Revolution 
the  women  were  often  more  stalwart  than  the  men,  urg- 
ing husbands  and  fathers  not  to  give  in  in  order  to  save 
their  property  and  bearing  cheerfully  hardship  and 
banishment.^ 

In  all  the  southern  colonies  there  were  keen  gentle- 
women that  took  up  tracts  of  land  and  cleared  and  cul- 
tivated their  estates.  Southern  women  were  not  out- 
done by  the  business  women  of  the  North.    A  traveler 


Woman's  Place  in  the  South  279 

who  had  been  through  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  Caro- 
lina wrote  (in  the  London  Magazine,  1745- 1746)  : 
"The  women,  who  have  plantations,  I  have  seen  mighty 
busy  in  examining  the  limbs,  size,  and  abilities  of  their 
intended  purchases."  There  were  several  women  ed- 
itors in  the  South."' 

In  general  the  women  of  the  South  were  freer  from 
toil  than  those  of  the  North.  Yet  even  in  this  milder 
region  pioneer  life  required  a  degree  of  fortitude  that 
tended  to  strengthen  female  character  as  the  perils  of 
feudalism  had  done  for  the  chatelaines  of  earlier  days. 
A  Maryland  missionary  letter  of  1638  remarks  that  "a 
noble  matron  has  just  died,  who  coming  with  the  first 
settlers  .  .  .  with  more  than  woman's  courage  bore 
all  difficulties  and  inconveniences.  .  .  A  perfect  ex- 
ample as  well  in  herself  as  in  her  domestic  concerns." 
Maryland  planters'  women  lived  in  the  saddle  but  were 
none  the  less  "queens  of  the  household"  with  the  grace 
of  those  "to  the  manor  born."  A  writer  on  Virginia 
says  in  1853 : 

Many  of  the  respected  females  who  iJgured  in  the  earh'er 
period  of  our  history,  were  very  difFerent,  in  some  respects, 
from  the  accomplished  and  esteemed  fair  ones  of  the  city  at  this 
day.  They  were  generally  more  robust  and  capable  of  endur- 
ing much  greater  fatigue.  The  roseate  tints  upon  the  full 
cheek  of  health  were  more  frequently  to  be  seen,  nor  so  soon 
gave  place  to  the  pale  hues  of  debility,  disease,  and  premature 
death.  .  .  They  mounted  the  spirited  horse  and  cantered 
[before  sunrise].^" 

^*3  For  woman's  sphere  in  the  southern  colonies  see  Richardson,  SiJf- 
lights  on  Maryland  History,  vol.  i,  chapter  xxxiii;  Early,  By-ivays  of  Vir- 
ginia History,  155-157;  Bruce,  Social  Life  of  Virginia  in  the  Seventeenth  Cen- 
tury, 231;  Earle,  Colonial  Dames  and  GooditAves,  chapter  ii;  Fisher,  Men, 
Women,  and  Manners  in  Colonial  Times,  vol.  ii,  321-323;  Sioussat,  Colonial 
Women  of  Maryland,  214-226. 

1**  Forrest.     Historical  and  Descriptive  Sketches  of  Norfolk,   In.,  42-43. 


280       The  American  Family —  Colonial  Period 
Doctor  Brickell  of  North  Carolina  wrote: 

Both  sexes  are  very  dexterous  in  paddling  and  managing  their 
canoes,  both  men,  women,  boys,  and  girls,  being  bred  to  it 
from   their   infancy. 

Woman's  function  as  housewife  and  helpmeet  was  in- 
deed important.  A  traveler  wrote  of  Maryland: 
The  women  are  very  handsome  in  general,  and  most  notable 
housewives;  everything  wears  the  mark  of  cleanliness  and  in- 
dustry in  their  houses;  and  their  behavior  to  their  husbands 
and  families  is  very  edifying.  .  .  I  am  not  writing  anything 
yet  of  the  more  refined  part  of  the  colony,  but  what  I  say  now 
is  confined  to  a  tract  of  about  200  miles ;  for  in  some  other  parts 
you  will  find  many  coquettes  and  prudes,  as  well  as  in  other 
places ;  nor,  perhaps,  may  the  lap-dog  or  monkey  be  f orgotten.^*^ 

At  all  events  woman's  civic  service  was  mainly  in  the 
home. 

Concerning  Virginia  an  eighteenth  century  writer 
said: 

Of  the  planters'  ladies,  I  must  speak  in  terms  of  unqualified 
praise;  they  had  an  easy  kindness  of  manner,  as  far  removed 
from  rudeness  as  from  reserve.  .  .  To  the  influence  of  their 
society,  I  chiefly  attribute  their  husband's  refinement. 

A  nineteenth  century  writer  on  Norfolk,  looking  back, 
said: 

[The  colonial  ladies  were]  noted  for  their  personal  attractions ; 
and  many,  in  the  higher  walks  of  life,  for  great  dignity  of  char- 
acter, modesty,  and  politeness  of  behavior,  as  well  as  for  their 
activity  and  frugality  in  the  management  of  their  household 
affairs.  These  commendable  qualities  left  their  impress  and 
beneficial  influence  upon  succeeding  generations.  .  .  Some 
spun  at  the  wheel  or  wove  at  the  hand  loom!  and  cultivated 
kitchen  and  flower  gardens.  They  studied  the  Bible,  and  other 
books  of  sound  moral  and  religious  instruction ;  instilled  correct, 
honorable,  virtuous,  and  patriotic  principles  into  the  minds  of 
their  children,    and   presided  with   dignity   and   grace   at   the 

^^^  Itinerant  Observations  in  America,  46. 


JV Oman's  Place  in  the  South  281 

social  entertainment.  .  .  Of  many  it  might  then  have  been 
said.  .  .  "She  openeth  her  mouth  with  wisdom,  and  in  her 
tongue  is  the  law  of  kindness.  She  looketh  well  to  the  ways 
of  her  household,  and  eateth  not  the  bread  of  idleness.  Her 
children  arise  up  and  call  her  blessed;  her  husband  also,  and 
he  praiseth  her." 

James  Franklin  wrote  at  the  end  of  the  Revolution- 
ary period  that  except  for  certain  amusements  the  Vir- 
ginia ladies 

Chiefly  spend  their  time  in  sewing  and  taking  care  of  their 
families;  for  they  seldom  read  or  endeavor  to  improve  their 
minds.  However  they  are  in  general  good  housewives;  and  tho 
they  have  not  perhaps,  so  much  tenderness  and  sensibility  as 
the  English  ladies,  yet  they  make  as  good  wives  and  as  good 
mothers  as  any  in  the  world. 

Brickell  wrote  further  of  North  Carolina: 

The  girls  are  not  only  bred  to  the  needle  and  spinning,  but  to 
the  dairy  and  domestic  affairs,  which  many  of  them  manage 
with  a  great  deal  of  prudence  and  conduct,  tho  they  are  very 
young.  .  .  The  women  are  the  most  industrious  in  these 
parts,  and  many  of  them  by  their  good  housewifery  make  a 
great  deal  of  cloath  of  their  own  cotton,  wool  and  flax,  and 
some  of  them  weave  their  own  cloath  with  which  they  decent- 
ly apparel  their  whole  family  tho  large.  Others  are  so  ingen- 
ious that  they  make  up  all  the  wearing  apparel  both  for  husband, 
sons  and  daughters.  Others  are  very  ready  to  help  and  assist 
their  husbands  in  any  servile  work,  as  planting  when  the  sea- 
son of  the  year  requires  expedition :  pride  seldom  banishing 
housewifery. 

Tradition  of  South  Carolina  tells  us  that  among  the 
Huguenots  "men  and  their  wives  worked  together  in 
felling  trees,  building  houses,  making  fences,  and  grub- 
bing up  their  grounds  .  .  .  and  afterwards  con- 
tinued their  labors  at  the  whip-saw."  One  man  asserts 
that  his  grandfather  and  grandmother  started  their 
handsome  fortune  by  working  together  at  the  whip- 


282       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

saw.  A  writer  on  South  Carolina  in  1763  said:  The 
women  of  the  province  "are  excelled  by  none  in  the 
practice  of  all  the  social  virtues,  necessary  for  the  hap- 
piness of  the  other  sex  as  daughters,  wives,  or  mothers." 

There  was  more  grace  and  charm  perhaps  in  the  set- 
tled life  of  the  South  than  in  that  of  New  England  but 
it  is  pretty  clear  that  divergence  of  life  between  North 
and  South  was  less  marked  in  colonial  days  than  since. 
But  even  before  the  Revolution  "chivalry"  was,  as  we 
have  seen,  under  way.  Lady  Tryon  and  Esther  Wake 
wrought  so  successfully  with  their  feminine  charms 
that  the  North  Carolina  assembly  granted  a  large  ap- 
propriation to  build  a  governor's  palace.  Woman's  in- 
fluence was  felt  not  only  in  private  but  in  public -in 
council,  in  assemblies,  in  the  House  of  Burgesses. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  when  writers  eulogize 
the  women  of  the  South  and  the  attitude  of  the  men 
toward  them  the  picture  in  mind  is  likely  to  be  of 
the  women  of  the  "aristocracy."  Common  people  were 
not  very  likely  to  get  into  books  very  adequately  in  the 
Old  South.  Side  by  side  with  the  women  of  the  nobil- 
ity lived  the  miserable  sisters  of  toil -the  poor,  the  serv- 
ants, the  slaves -and  their  lot  was  by  no  means  roseate. 
Some  conception  of  the  life  of  the  servile  class  will  be 
gained  in  a  later  chapter.  In  Virginia  in  order  to  dis- 
courage planters  from  working  women  in  the  fields,  fe- 
male servants  so  working  were  made  subject  to  tithe, 
while  all  other  white  women  were  exempt.^*^  A  woman 
in  The  Sot-weed  Factor;  or,  a  Voyage  to  Maryland^ 
contrasts  England  and  America  thus: 

Not  then  a  slave  for  twice  two  year 
My  cloaths  were  fashionably  new 
Nor  were  my  shifts  of  linnen  blue. 


146  Burk.     History  of  Virginia,  vol.  li,  appendix  xviii. 


Woman's  Place  in  the  South  283 

But  things  are  changed;  now  at  the  hoe, 
I  daily  work  and  barefoot  go, 

In  weeding  corn  or  feeding  swine, 

I  spend  my  melancholy  time. 

In  the  valley  of  Virginia  in  harvest  German  women 
worked  in  the  fields.  Females  reaped,  hoed,  plowed. 
A  writer  on  the  valley  said :  "Some  of  our  now  wealth- 
iest citizens  frequently  boast  of  their  grandmothers,  aye 
mothers  too,  performing  this  kind  of  heavy  labor." 

North  Carolina  became  a  dumping  ground  for 
"white  trash."  If  we  may  believe  one  sharp  writer 
(seemingly  Byrd,  whose  reliability  has  been  impugned) 

The  men  .  .  .  just  like  the  Indians,  impose  all  the  work 
upon  the  poor  women.  They  make  their  wives  rise  out  of 
their  beds  early  in  the  morning,  at  the  same  time  that  they  lye 
and  snore,  til  the  sun  has  run  one  third  of  his  course.  .  . 
They  loiter  away  their  lives  .  .  .  and  at  the  winding  up 
of  the  year  scarcely  have  bread  to  eat. 

North  Carolina  possessed  much  of  the  roughness  and 
crudeness  of  frontier  life.  The  reverend  Mr.  Urm- 
stone,  a  missionary,  writes  numerous  querulous  letters 
detailing  the  hardships  of  the  country  and  the  rough- 
ness of  the  people.  A  letter,  dated  February  15,  17 19, 
relates  that  his  wife  died  in  October.     She  had 

Declared  before  several  of  her  neighbors  that  her  heart  was 
broken  through  our  ill  usage  and  comfortless  way  of  living;  she 
prest  me  sore  for  divers  years  either  to  quit  this  wretched  coun- 
try or  give  her  leave  to  go  home  with  her  children:  I  wish  I 
had  done  either  it  might  have  pleased  God  to  have  continued  her 
to  me  many  years  longer. 


XVII.    CHILDHOOD  IN  THE  COLONIAL 
SOUTH 

Children  were  of  use  in  the  colonial  South  as  in  New 
England.  The  opportunity  for  child-labor  left  un- 
bridled the  spontaneous  impulse  to  propagation  and 
fecundity  was  a  social  boon  in  the  new  country. 

The  London  Company,  which  settled  Virginia,  was 
anxious  to  utilize  child-labor  in  developing  the  re- 
sources of  the  colony.  In  1619  arrived  one  hundred 
children  "save  such  as  dyed  on  the  waie"  and  another 
hundred,  twelve  years  old  or  over,  was  asked  for.  In 
1627  many  ships  came  bringing  fourteen  or  fifteen  hun- 
dred children  kidnapped  in  Europe.  A  few  years  later 
a  request  went  to  London  for  another  supply  of  "friend- 
less boyes  and  girles." 

How  the  system  of  servitude  affected  family  rela- 
tions may  be  gathered  from  the  following  illustrative 
material. 

A  boy  six  years  old  was  kidnapped  in  England  by  a 
sea-captain  and  sold  to  America  where  he  married  his 
master's  daughter  and  became  his  heir.  He  never 
found  his  parents.  Later  he  bought  the  sea-captain 
(now  a  convict).  The  latter,  probably  fearing  ven- 
geance, killed  himself  the  first  day. 

James  McAvoy  and  thirteen  other  youths  were  kid- 
napped from  Ireland  and  brought  to  Virginia.  Several 
of  the  boys  were  recovered  by  their  parents.  McAvoy 
was  sold  to  Mr.  R.  Carlile  and  by  him  resold  to  a  man 


286       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

in  the  valley.  While  in  service  he  married  but  re- 
turned to  the  bull-pasture  before  his  time  was  out.  His 
owner  came  and  took  him  back.  Presently  his  wife 
came  to  him  with  her  child.  The  couple  soon  ran  away 
together  and  he  was  not  again  disturbed. 

Banishment  to  the  plantations  was  the  probable  fate 
of  a  child  whose  existence  menaced  the  honor  or  peace 
of  a  noble  family. 

In  1632  the  Virginia  colony  gave  John  and  Anna 
Layton  five  hundred  acres  of  land  in  official  recognition 
of  the  fact  that  their  child,  Virginia,  was  the  first  white 
child  born  in  the  colony.  By  1634- 1639  is  noted  faster 
growth  due  to  advance  in  birth-rate.  The  writer  of 
Leah  and  Rachel  said  of  Virginia: 

Children  increase  and  thrive  so  well  there  that  they  them- 
selves will  sufficiently  supply  the  defect  of  servants,  and  in  small 
time  become  a  nation  of  themselves  sufficient  to  people  the 
country. 

Primal  fertility  appeared.  We  hear  of  a  family  of 
twelve  living  in  a  cabin  with  only  an  earth  floor  and 
with  no  beds  save  bearskins.  Some  families  had  eight, 
ten,  or  fifteen  children.  Patrick  Henry,  born  in  1736, 
was  one  of  nineteen  children  and  John  Marshall,  born 
in  1755,  was  the  first  of  fifteen. 

In  Maryland  thrifty  yeomen  had  large  families. 
Evidence  of  family  magnitude  is  found  in  the  grave- 
yard Mrs.  Richardson  remarks  in  regretful  retrospec- 
tion: 

Manor  houses  with  outstretched  wings  were  built  to  gather 
under  their  sheltering  roofs  the  dozen  or  more  little  ones  who 
usually  came  to  break  the  stillness  of  the  quiet  days  in  that  far 
off  time  when  there  was  more  of  maternity  than  nervous  energy 
in  the  world. 

Families  in  North  Carolina  were  large.     Fecundity 


Childhood  in  the  South  287 


was  a  family  ideal.  Pioneer  vigor  ensured  numerous 
offspring;  and  as  a  rule  children  repaid  even  before  the 
age  of  twenty-one  the  expenses  of  rearing.  Doctor 
Brickell  wrote  in  1737: 

The  women  are  very  fruitful,  most  houses  being  full  of  little 
ones,  and  many  women  from  other  places  who  have  been  long 
married  and  without  children,  have  removed  to  Carolina  and 
become  joyful  mothers,  as  has  often  been  observed.  It  very 
seldom  happens  they  miscarry,  and  they  have  very  easie  travail 
in  their  child-bearing.  .  .  The  Europeans,  or  Christians  of 
North  Carolina  are  a  streight,  tall,  well-limbed  and  active  peo- 
ple ;  their  children  being  seldom  or  never  troubled  with  rickets, 
and  many  other  distempers  that  the  Europians  are  afflicted  with, 
and  you  shall  seldom  see  any  of  them  deformed  in  body. 

Governor  Dobbs  wrote  from  Newbern  in  1755: 

There  are  at  present  75  families  on  my  lands.  I  viewed  betwixt 
30  and  40  of  them,  and  except  two  there  are  not  less  than  from 
five  or  six  to  ten  children  in  each  family,  each  going  barefooted 
in  their  shifts  in  the  warm  weather,  no  woman  wearing  more 
than  a  shift,  and  one  thin  petticoat;  They  are  a  colony  from  Ire- 
land removed  from  Pennsylvania,  of  what  we  call  Scotch-Irish 
Presbyterians  who  with  others  in  the  neighboring  tracts  had  set- 
tled together  in  order  to  have  a  teacher  of  their  own  opinion 
and  choice. 

Woodmason's  Account  of  North  Carolina  in  IjdO 
informs  us  that  "the  necessaries  of  life  are  so  cheap  and 
so  easily  acquired  and  propagation  being  unrestricted 
that  the  increase  of  people  there  is  inconceivable  even 
to  themselves."  For  the  fifty  years  from  1753  to  1803 
the  church  register  of  a  Moravian  group  shows  more 
than  twice  as  many  births  as  deaths. 

In  1708  Oldmixon  wrote  of  Charlestown: 

There  are  at  least  250  families  in  this  town,  most  of  which  are 
numerous,  and  many  of  them  have  ten  or  twelve  children  in 
each. 
He  likewise  informs  us  that  in  Carolina  "the  children 


288       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

are  set  to  work  at  eight  years  old."     Milligan  wrote  of 

Charlestown  in  1763: 

I  have  examined  a  pretty  exact  register  of  the  births  and  burials 
for  fifteen  years,  and  find  them,  except  when  the  small-pox 
prevailed,  nearly  equal;  the  advantage,  the  small,  is  in  favor  of 
the  births,  tho  the  burials  are  added  all  the  transient  people 
who  die  here. 

Genealogical  registers  show  the  following  instances 
of  South  Carolina  fecundity  during  the  seventeenth 
and  eighteenth  centuries :  Five  persons  with  nine  chil- 
dren each ;  six  with  ten  children  each ;  three  with  eleven 
children  each ;  four  with  twelve  each ;  two  with  thirteen 
each;  one  with  fourteen;  one  with  fifteen;  one  woman 
with  nineteen  children  by  one  husband.  There  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  the  elect  few  whose  genealogies 
are  available  were  unique  in  prolificness. 

In  Georgia  some  people  settled  on  the  edge  of 
swamps.  In  one  settlement  so  high  was  the  death-rate 
among  children  that  they  seldom  survived  till  puberty. 
Those  that  lived  to  adulthood  possessed  feeble  constitu- 
tions. But  a  letter  from  Savannah  in  1740  contains  this 
item: 

I  have  carefully  inquired  into  the  account  of  our  births  and 
burials  at  Savannah,  and  its  districts  for  one  year  past,  and  find 
the  former  has  exceeded  the  latter  as  three  to  tw^o. 

As  always  in  a  new  country  natural  conditions  im- 
parted a  training  in  activity  and  responsibility.  Thus 
the  author  of  Leah  and  Rachel  says  of  Virginia : 

This  good  policy  is  there  used ;  as  the  children  there  born  grow 
to  maturity,  and  capable  (as  they  are  generally  very  capable  and 
apt)  they  are  still  preferred  and  put  into  authority,  and  carry 
themselves  therein  civilly  and  discreetly. 

Alsop  says  of  Maryland  in  1666:  There  are  no  ale- 
houses; "from  antient  custom  .  .  .  the  son  works 
as  well  as  the  servant;  so  that  before  they  eat  their 


Childhood  in  the  South  289 

bread,  they  are  commonly  taught  how  to  earn  it."  By 
the  time  sons  are  ready  to  receive  what  the  father  gives 
them,  which  is  partly  their  own  earning,  "they  manage 
it  with  such  a  serious,  grave,  and  watching  care,  as  if 
they  had  been  masters  of  families,  trained  up  in  that 
domestick  and  governing  power  from  their  cradles." 

The  spiritual  welfare  of  the  young  was  an  object  of 
solicitude  but  also  subject  to  vicissitudes.  In  the  Mary- 
land Assembly  in  1694,  ^^  was  ordered  that  a  law  be 
proposed  that  parents  frequently  bring  their  children  to 
be  catechized  and  that  the  ministers  call  upon  them.  In 
1696  it  was  voted  that  the  ministers  frequently  admon- 
ish the  children's  parents  in  their  parishes  to  send  them 
to  be  catechized.  A  circular  letter  in  1701  to  the  clergy 
of  Maryland  by  the  reverend  Thomas  Bray,  a  clergy- 
man of  the  Church  of  England,  urges  religious  training 
of  children  in  which  there  has  been  remissness.  In  Vir- 
ginia an  act  of  1661-1662  recites  that  "many  schismat- 
ical  persons  .  .  .  refuse  to  have  .  .  .  children 
baptized."  Accordingly  parents  refusing  to  carry  a 
child  to  a  lawful  minister  for  baptism  were  to  be  fined 
two  thousand  pounds  of  tobacco.  The  records  of  the 
period  contain  one  case,  at  any  rate,  of  an  order  against 
a  father  under  charge  of  not  baptizing  children.  The 
reverend  Samuel  Davis,  minister  at  Hanover,  wrote  in 
1751  that  family  religion  was  a  rarity.  Byrd  said  that 
the  North  Carolina  settlers  took  no  trouble  to  get  chil- 
dren baptized  and  Christianized.  It  may  be  that  the 
strictures  of  this  Episcopalian  cavalier  were  unfair. 
The  North  Carolina  records  for  1771-1775  contain  an 
account  of  an  Episcopal  minister's  charging  fifteen  shil- 
lings for  baptizing  a  sick  child. 

I  have  of  my  own  knowledge  seen  a  man  as  he  passed  his  dDor 
desire  him  to  call  in  and  baptize  his  child  w  hich  lay  sick  .iiid  lie 


290       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

has  refused  and  in  consequence     .     .     .     the  child  died  unbap- 
tized. 

In  an  account  of  missionaries  sent  to  South  Carolina 
in  the  early  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  occurs  a  re- 
port, dated  in  the  year  1706,  from  the  reverend  Doctor 
Le  Jean  that  "the  parents  and  masters"  were  "endued 
with  much  good  will,  and  a  ready  disposition  to  have 
their  children  and  servants  taught  the  Christian  re- 
ligion." When  he  found  parents  refraining  on  account 
of  expense  from  having  children  baptized  he  told  them 
he  desired  nothing. 

Scattered  residence  and  aristocratic  spirit  retarded 
the  planting  of  schools.  Education  in  the  South  was 
very  defective.  Only  the  aristocracy  could  provide  for 
its  children  according  to  the  best  educational  standards 
of  the  age  in  England. 

With  this  dearth  of  formal  arrangements  for  educa- 
tion the  training  of  the  young  was  naturally  subject  to 
varying  vicissitudes.  In  seventeenth  century  Virginia 
the  desire  of  parents  to  provide  education  for  their 
children  was  indicated  in  various  ways.  Often  direc- 
tions were  left  and  provision  was  made  in  wills.  One 
of  the  most  ordinary  provisions  of  wills  was  that  the 
testator's  children  be  taught  to  read  the  Bible.  Many 
planters  provided  surprisingly  large  amounts  for  the 
education  of  their  children.  John  Custis  IV.  provided 
by  will  that  the  proceeds  of  the  labor  of  fourteen  slaves 
should  be  devoted  to  the  maintenance  and  tuition  of  his 
grandson  until  he  should  be  sent  to  England  for  ad- 
vanced training  for  which  an  additional  large  amount 
was  provided.  John  Savage  directed  in  his  will  that  a 
horse  and  mare,  two  steers  and  two  cows,  with  their  in- 
crease, should  go  for  the  education  of  his  son  in  Eng- 
land.    For  the  tuition  of  his  two  daughters  the  execu-. 


Childhood  in  the  South  291 

tors  were  to  hire  out  three  servants.  That  the  desire  to 
have  their  children  educated  was  not  confined  to  whites 
is  shown  by  the  will  of  Thomas  Carter,  a  free  negro, 
which  directed  as  to  the  education  of  his  sons.  In  early- 
Maryland  wills  also  fathers  provide  for  the  education 
of  their  sons -"as  befits  their  station,"  frequently  direct- 
ing that  they  be  sent  to  college  in  England. 

Maryland  children  were  taught  by  parents,  tutored, 
or  sent  to  England  to  school.  Many  sons  of  wealthy 
parents  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  an  education  abroad. 
In  Virginia  the  wealthiest  families  kept  tutors.  Some- 
times the  tutor  was  a  freed  servant,  as  in  the  Washing- 
ton family,  and  sometimes  a  servant  still  in  bondage. 
Often  the  tutor  in  a  great  Virginia  family  was  an  Epis- 
copal clergyman.  When  the  sons  outgrew  their  master 
they  were  sent  to  New  or  Old  England,  or  perchance  to 
William  and  Mary.  Before  1770  nearly  every  South 
Carolina  planter  sent  his  sons  to  Oxford  or  Cambridge. 

To  William  and  Mary  many  Maryland  boys  were 
sent -a  fact  that  largely  accounts  for  the  numerous  mar- 
riage alliances  between  the  early  families  of  Maryland 
and  those  of  Virginia.  A  traveler  in  the  South  wrote 
before  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century:  "The 
Williamsburgh  college  in  Virginia  is  the  Resort  of  all 
the  children,  whose  parents  can  afford  it."  It  is  inferior 
to  the  universities  of  Massachusetts,  "for  the  youth  of 
these  more  indulgent  settlements,  partake  pretty  much 
of  the  petit  maitre  kind,  and  are  pampered  much  more 
in  softness  and  ease  than  their  neighbors  more  north- 
ward." Such  a  spoiled  lad  was,  perhaps,  Thomas  Byrd 
who  was  sentenced  to  a  whipping  on  the  charge  of 
breaking  windows.  He  refused  to  submit ;  his  father  of- 
fered to  compel  him ;  but  he  was  expelled  from  college. 


292       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 
The  traveler  just  quoted  says  also: 

Often  a  clever  servant  or  convict,  that  can  write  and  read  toler- 
ably, and  is  of  no  handicraft  business,  is  indented  to  some  plant- 
er, who  has  a  number  of  children,  as  a  schoolmaster,  and  then, 
to  be  sure,  he  is  a  tip-top  man  in  his  parts,  and  the  servant  is 
used  more  indulgently  than  the  generality  of  them. 

The  diary  of  John  Hanower  (1773-1776)  who  came 
to  Virginia  as  a  schoolmaster,  indented  to  Colonel  Dan- 
gerfield,  illuminates  this  phase  of  pedagogy.  His  wife 
seems  to  have  been  in  England. 

[May  27.]  This  morning  about  8  A  M  the  colonel  delivered 
his  three  sons  to  my  charge  to  teach  them  to  read,  write,  and 
figure.  His  oldest  son  Edwin  ten  years  of  age,  intred  into  two 
syllables  in  the  spelling  book,  Bathourest  his  second  son  six  years 
of  age  in  the  alphabete  and  William  his  third  son  four  years  of 
age  does  not  know  the  letters,  he  has  likewise  a  daugh- 
ter. .  .  My  school  houres  is  from  six  to  eight  in  the  morn- 
ing, in  the  forenoon  from  nine  to  twelve,  and  from  three  to  six 
in  the  afternoon.  .  .  [June  14]  This  morning  entered  to 
school  Wm.  Pattie  son  of  John  Pattie  wright,  and  Salley  Evens 
daughter  to  Thos.  Evens  Planter.  .  .  [Monday,  20th]  This 
morning  entred  to  school  Philip  and  Dorothea  Edge's  Chil- 
dren of  Mr.  Benjamin  Edge,  Planter.  .  .  [Tuesday,  21st] 
This  day  Mr.  Samuel  Edge  Planter  came  to  me  and  begged  me 
to  take  a  son  of  his  to  school  who  was  both  deaf  and  dum,  and  I 
consented  to  try  what  I  cou'd  do  with  him.  .  .  Munday, 
17th  [Apr.,  1775]  At  8  A  M  I  rode  to  Town.  .  .  On 
my  aravel  in  town  the  first  thing  I  got  to  do  was  to  dictate 
and  write  a  love  letter  from  Mr.  Anderson  to  one  Peggie 
Dewar  at  the  howse  of  Mr.  John  Mitchel  at  the  Wilder- 
ness. .  .  [Tuesday,  April  23d,  1776]  Settled  with  Mr. 
Porter  for  teaching  his  tvvo  sons  12  Mos.  when  he  ver>f  genteely 
allowed  me  £6  for  them,  besides  a  present  of  two  silk  vests 
and  two  pair  of  nankeen  breeches  last  summer  and  a  gallon  of 
rum  at  Christenmass,  both  he  and  Mrs.  Porter  being  extream- 
ly  w^ell  satisfied  with  what  I  hade  don  to  them. 

Not  all  pedagogy  was  so  amateurish  as  that  suggested 


Childhood  in  the  South  293 

by  the  diary  of  this  worthy  pedagog.  Mrs.  Pinckney 
wanted  to  get  her  son  a  toy  so  that  he  might  learn  by 
play  according  to  Locke's  method.  His  father  under- 
took to  contrive  a  set  of  toys  to  teach  him  his  letters  by 
the  time  he  could  speak.  "You  perceive  we  begin 
betimes  for  he  is  not  yet  four  months  old."  The  infant 
began  to  spell  before  he  was  two  years  of  age.  He  be- 
came General  C.  C.  Pinckney  of  Revolutionary  fame 
but  he  declared  that  this  early  teaching  nearly  made  him 
a  stupid  fellow.  Martha  Laurens,  born  in  Charleston 
in  1759,  could  in  her  third  year  "read  any  book." 

School  administration  presented  problems  of  its  own. 
The  first  free  school  in  Queen  Anne's  County,  Mary- 
land, procured  its  first  teacher  in  1724.  Difficulty  was 
soon  experienced  in  securing  the  attendance  of  the 
"foundation"  pupils.  Many  notices  were  given  to  the 
parents  and  guardians  of  these  pupils  requiring  them  to 
show  cause  why  the  pupils  were  not  at  school.  A  letter 
from  the  reverend  Mr.  Reed,  dated  at  Newbern,  North 
Carolina,  in  1772,  recounts  trouble  about  an  academy. 
"When  Mr.  T.  opened  his  school,  he  was  apprized  of 
the  excessive  indulgence  of  American  parents,  and  the 
great  difficulty  of  keeping  up  a  proper  discipline;  more 
especially  as  his  school  consisted  of  numbers  of  both 
sexes."  He  had  to  correct  and  turn  out  some  for  un- 
ruliness.  Two  trustees  whose  children  were  turned  out 
became  "his  most  implacable  enemies.  .  .  The  cor- 
recting and  turning  the  children  of  two  of  the  trustees 
out  of  the  school,  was,  like  the  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost,  never  to  be  forgiven." 

The  early  German  settlers  of  North  Carolina  brought 
their  religious  books  with  them.  The  cabin  in  the 
clearing  was  followed  by  a  schoolhouse  erected  in  sonic 
accessible  place.    The  youth  were  taught  by  the  school- 


294       ^^'^^  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

master  the  rudiments  of  education.  The  mother  tongue 
was  used. 

A  writer  on  Highland  County,  Virginia,  tells  us  that 

The  Scotch-Irish  set  great  store  on  schooling,  but  pioneer  life 
in  a  thinly  peopled  wilderness  was  not  favorable  to  effort  in 
this  direction.  The  more  alert  of  those  who  could  read  and 
write  would  give  their  children  some  rudimentary  train- 
ing. .  .  A  significant  instance  lies  in  the  fact  that  an  early 
constable  of  the  Bullpasture,  who  of  necessity  was  able  to  read 
and  write,  reared  an  illiterate  family.  A  signature  by  means 
of  a  mark  was  very  common. 

Doctor  Brickell  of  North  Carolina  wrote: 

The  children  at  nine  months  old  are  able  to  walk  and  run 
about  the  house,  and  are  very  docile  and  apt  to  learn  anything, 
as  any  children  in  Europe;  and  those  that  have  the  advantage 
to  be  educated,  write  good  hands,  and  prove  good  accountants, 
which  is  very  much  coveted,  and  most  necessary  in  these  parts. 

A  writer  on  the  history  of  Mecklenburg  County  and  the 
city  of  Charlotte  in  colonial  times,  says  that  the  children 
generally  received  six  months  of  schooling  for  two  or 
three  years. 

Observations  by  a  traveler  through  the  South  ap- 
pearing in  the  London  Magazine,  1745- 1746,  indicate 
that  "those  that  cant  afford  to  send  their  children  to  the 
better  schools,  send  them  to  the  country  school-masters 
who  are  generally  servants,  who  after  serving  their 
terms  out,  set  up  for  themselves." 

A  historian  of  Tazewell  County,  Virginia,  wrote  in 
1852: 

The  early  settlers  of  this  region  had  many  difficulties  to  encoun- 
ter in  their  efforts  to  procure  homes  for  themselves  and  their 
children,  and  too  frequently  education  appears  to  have  been  but 
of  secondary  importance  in  their  estimation.  Yet  primary  schools 
of  some  sort  seem  to  have  been  maintained  from  an  early  date 
after  its  settlement,  in  those  neighborhoods  where  children  were 
sufficiently  numerous  to  make  up  a  school,  and  parents  were  able 
and  willing  to  support  a  teacher. 


Childhood  in  the  South  295 

Nevertheless  in  spite  of  all  the  desire  for  education 
and  pitiful  attempts  to  provide  it  the  southern  masses 
remained  unenlightened.  Doyle  says:  "In  the  absence 
of  schools  the  small  freeholder,  so  far  as  such  a  class  ex- 
isted, grew  up  with  tastes  and  habits  little  above  those 
of  the  savage  whom  he  supplanted."  ^*^ 

Occasionally  the  class  feeling  of  the  aristocracy  in  the 
matter  of  education  struck  fire.  Some  of  their  ideas 
would  bring  delight  to  the  modern  advocates  of  caste 
lines  in  education.  Thus  the  proceedings  of  the  Mary- 
land assembly  for  1663  contain  this  item: 

Was  returned  the  additionall  act  for  the  advancement  of  chil- 
dren's estates  from  the  lower  house  wherein  they  desired  the 
words  [handy  craft,  trade]  might  be  struck  out.  Ordered  that 
answer  be  returned  that  to  strike  out  those  words  .  .  .  was 
to  destroy  the  very  thing  intended  by  the  act  which  was  to 
breed  up  all  the  indigent  youth  of  this  province  to  handycraft 
trade  and  noe  other. 

In  seventeenth  century  Virginia  the  court  looked  to 
the  education  of  orphans.  Masters  were  obliged  to 
teach  their  bond-apprentices  to  read  and  write.  For 
instance  in  1698  "Ann  Chandler,  orphan  of  Daniel 
Chandler,  bound  apprentice  to  Phyllemon  Miller  till 
eighteen  or  day  of  marriage,  to  be  taught  to  read  a  chap- 
ter in  the  Bible,  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  Ten  Command- 
ments, and  semptress  work."  Many  negro  children 
were  taught  to  read  and  write  by  their  parents  or  mas- 
ters. North  Carolina  law  required  that  orphans  be 
properly  educated  according  to  rank  out  of  the  estate  if 
it  sufficed;  otherwise  they  were  to  be  apprenticed  to 
handicraft  or  trade  (not  to  Quakers)  till  of  age. 

The  Quaker  counterpart  of  the  discrimination  men- 
tioned is  seen  in  a  query  adopted  by  the  Maryland 
yearly  meeting  in  1725  to  be  answered  by  lower  meet- 

1*7  Doyle.     English  Colonies  in  America,  vol.  i,  394. 


296       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

ings :  "Whether  there  is  any  masters  of  trade  that  want 
apprentices[,]  or  children  of  Friends  to  be  put  forth, 
that  they  apply  themselves  to  the  monthly  meetings  be- 
fore they  take  those  that  are  not  Friends,  or  put  forth 
their  children  to  such?"  Another  query  was:  "Whether 
have  the  children  of  the  poor  due  education  so  as  to  fitt 
them  for  necessary  employment?" 

Family  government  in  the  colonies  was  patriarchal 
tho  not  necessarily  harsh  and  forbidding.     Pioneer  ex- 
igencies magnified  the  family  into  a  compendium  of 
church,  state,  and  school.     Immigrant  peoples  had  the 
same  problem  as  modern  immigrants  in  respect  to  main- 
taining the  mother  tongue  and  folk  standards.     The 
Mennonists  in  the  Valley  of  Virginia  trained  their  chil- 
dren in  their  peculiar  religious  ways.     Generally  they 
strictly  forbade  the  dance  or  other  juvenile  amusements 
common  to  other  sects  of  Germans.    Virginia  had  dis- 
reputable taverns  and  saloons  that  were  an  offset  to  fam- 
ily interests  and  discipline.     The  Maryland  Quaker 
queries  already  mentioned  contain  the  following: 
Are  all  careful  to  keep  meetings     .     .     .     bringing  forth  their 
families?     .     .     .     Do  those  that  have  children  train  them  up 
in  the  nurture  and  fear  of  the  Lord,  restraining  them  from 
vice,  wantonness,   and   keeping  company  with  such  as  would 
teach  them  vain  fations  and  corrupt  ways  of  this  world  to  the 
misspending  of  their  precious  time  and  substance? 

An  old  writer  remarks  of  the  Scotch-Irish  and  Scotch 
settlers  of  North  Carolina: 

These  Presbyterian  mothers  gloried  in  the  enterprise,  and  re- 
ligion, and  knowledge,  and  purity  of  their  husbands  and  chil- 
dren, and  would  forego  comforts  and  endure  toil  that  their 
sons  might  be  well  instructed  enterprising  men. 

Chastellux  says  that  like  the  English  the  settlers  were 
fond  of  their  infants  but  cared  little  for  their  children. 
The  annals  and  biographies  do  not  confirm  his  asser- 


Childhood  in  the  South  297 

tion,  George  Wythe  learned  Greek  at  home  from  a 
Testament  while  his  mother  held  an  English  copy  and 
guided  him.  John  Mason  carried  through  life  the  ef- 
fect of  his  mother's  influence.  She  died  when  he  was 
seven  yet  all  his  life  "mother's  room"  was  vivid  in  his 
memory. 

Of  course  one  can  find  instances  to  the  opposite  effect. 
Thus  the  reverend  Mr.  Urmstone  writes  from  North 
Carolina  that  the  people  are  unwilling  to  pay  minister 
or  schoolmaster,  "nay  they  need  to  be  hired  to  go  to 
church  or  send  their  children  to  school."  There  are  in- 
dications, however,  that  he  was  no  model  rector  or  pat- 
tern.    Indeed  he  himself  writes : 

I  intend  to  send  my  two  youngest  children  as  a  present  to  the 
society  hoping  they  will  put  them  into  some  charity  school  or 
hospital!.  Whereby  they  may  be  educated  and  provided  for, 
when  they  come  to  age,  for  I  am  not  able  to  maintain  them. 
My  eldest  is  near  twenty,  capable  of  helping  me,  but  is  bent  up- 
on going  for  England.  .  .  There  is  no  boarding  here,  there 
is  never  a  family  that  I  know  of  that  I  would  live  in  if  they 
would  hire  me. 

As  an  instance  of  aliens'  experience  with  their  chil- 
dren in  the  midst  of  the  English  environment  we  may 
cite  the  Huguenots.  The  children  of  the  immigrants 
grew  up  more  proficient  in  English  than  in  the  mother 
tongue.  Gradually  the  church  services  became  con- 
fined to  the  surviving  refugees  and  such  of  their  chil- 
dren as  out  of  respect  accompanied  them.  The  second 
and  third  generations  in  America  were  ready  to  join  the 
established  church  of  the  province. 

With  regard  to  the  character  of  youth  under  the  colo- 
nial regime  the  following  additional  citations  will  be 
suggestive.  A  Virginia  lady  of  the  olden  time  reported  : 

Very  little  from  books  was  thought  necessary  for  a  girl.     Slu- 

was  trained  to  domestic  matters,  however,  must  learn  the  .icconi- 


298       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

pHshments  of  the  day,  to  play  upon  the  harpsichord  or  spinet, 
and  to  work  impossible  dragons  and  roses  on  canvas. 

Doctor  Brickell  wrote  of  early  eighteenth  century 
North  Carolina: 

The  young  men  are  generally  of  a  bashful,  sober  behavior,  few^ 
proving  prodigals,  to  spend  what  the  parents  with  care  and 
industry  have  left  them  but  commonly  improve  it.  .  .  The 
girls  are  most  commonly  handsome  and  well  featur'd,  but  have 
pale  or  swarthy  complexions,  and  are  generally  more  forward 
than  the  boys,  notwithstanding  the  women  are  very  shy,  in  their 
discourses,  till  they  are  acquainted. 

The  author  of  Itinerant  Observations  in  America 
which  appeared  in  the  London  Magazine  of  1745- 1746, 
after  travels  in  the  South  wrote  thus: 

The  girls,  under  such  good  mothers,  generally  have  twice  the 
sense  and  discretion  of  the  boys;  their  dress  is  neat  and  clean, 
and  not  much  bordering  upon  the  ridiculous  humour  of  the 
mother  country,  where  the  daughters  seem  dressed  up  for  a 
market.     .     .     Adieu  Maryland. 


XVIII.    FAMILY  PATHOLOGY  AND  SOCIAL 

CENSORSHIP  IN  THE  COLONIAL 

SOUTH 

The  colonial  South  had  its  share  of  irregularities  in 
the  relations  between  husbands  and  wives,  parents  and 
children.  Civic  treatment  of  family  disorders  was 
somewhat  less  radical  than  in  New  England.  Isolation 
of  residence  made  for  a  low  degree  of  civic  control. 
Continental  blood  worked  against  tendencies  to  Puritan 
asperity  in  domestic  life. 

In  1624  in  Virginia  it  was  ordained  that 

Three  sufficient  men  of  every  parish  shall  be  sworn  to  see 
that  every  man  shall  plant  and  tende  sufficient  corne  for  his 
family.  Those  men  that  have  neglected  so  to  do  are  to  be  by 
the  said  three  men  presented  to  be  censured  by  the  governor  and 
counsell. 

Sometimes  Virginia  church  wardens  relieved  wives 
who,  with  children,  had  been  ejected  by  husbands. 
Mary  Laurence  in  1676  complained  that  her  husband 
had  driven  her  out  and  refused  to  maintain  her.  The 
justices  ordered  her  returned  home.  If  the  husband 
proved  vagabond  he  should  be  put  to  forced  labor  ior 
their  support.  Meanwhile  the  churchwarden  was  to 
see  that  she  and  the  child  did  not  lack  food.  In  168H  a 
man  had  deserted  an  old,  deaf  wife,  who  unless  the  rest 
of  her  estate  should  be  sold  would  be  thrown  on  the 
parish.  The  court  ordered  wardens  to  act  as  trustees  of 
the  property  and  use  it  for  her. 


300       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 
In  1692  the  Grand  Council  of  South  Carolina 

Upon  hereing  the  petition  of  Jan  La  Salle  ordrd  that  her  hus- 
band Peter  .  ,  .  cohibitt  wth:  the  said  Jane  his  wife  and 
maintaine  her  in  all  necessaryes  as  his  wife,  or  else  that  he  allow 
his  said  wife  the  negro  woman  he  had  with  her  and  pay  his  said 
wife  £6  ster.  p.  annum. 

He  was  charged  costs. 

A  North  Carolina  law  of  1755  provides  that  vagrants 
shall  be  whipped  from  constable  to  constable  to  the 
counties  where  their  wives  and  children  formerly  lived 
and  there  give  bond  for  good  behavior  and  "for  betak- 
ing him  or  herself  to  some  lawful  calling  or  honest 
labor."  Otherwise  the  culprit  should  be  hired  out  for 
one  year;  the  money  to  cover  expenses  of  arrest  and  any 
balance  to  go  to  the  family. 

In  Georgia  there  was  special  need  of  social  main- 
tenance of  families:  it  was  a  charity  establishment  in 
part.  At  a  board  meeting  in  1735  in  Palace  Court  was 
received  a 

Petition  of  Mary  Bateman,  mother  of  Wm.  Bateman  now  in 
Georgia,  setting  forth,  that  her  son,  William  Bateman  went 
to  Georgia  by  the  way  of  Charlestown  at  his  own  expense, 
with  one  servant  to  take  possession  of  a  grant  of  75  acres  of 
land;  that  his  servant  left  him  at  Charles  Town;  that  he  has 
had  great  illness,  and  been  at  extraordinary  expenses  on  other 
occasions;  and  praying  credit  for  a  years  maintenance  for  him- 
self and  his  wife  in  Georgia  and  to  have  the  assistance  of  a  serv- 
ant. Resolved  that  credit  be  given  to  the  said  Wm.  Bateman 
and  his  wife  for  a  year's  maintenance  and  that  a  servant  be  sent 
him.     .     . 

Resolvd  that  a  town  lot  in  Savannah  be  granted  to  Austin 
Weddell ;  And  that  he  and  his  wife  be  sent  over  by  the  said 
ship  and  that  they  be  maintained  for  a  year. 

In  regard  to  Georgia  the  following  regulation  was 
made: 

The  children  of  six  years  and  upwards  of  [certain]  servants  to 


\ 


Social  Censorship  in  the  South  301 

be  employed  as  the  overseers  shall  direct;  and  the  maintenance 
of  them  for  provisions  and  clothing;  to  be  paid  by  the  week 
after  the  rate  of  four  pence  a  day  each  .  .  .  but  those 
children  of  such  servants  under  six  years  old  are  to  be  main- 
tained by  the  parents  out  of  their  allowances. 

At  Frederica  and  Savannah  salaries  were  provided 
for  public  midwives  for  the  poor  and  for  trust  servants, 
besides  five  shillings  per  case,  and  the  midwives  were 
under  obligation  to  attend  on  such  as  required  their 
services. 

The  Savannah  records  for  a  number  of  years  contain 
numerous  instances  of  public  aid  to  families.  Many  of 
the  cases  involved  widowhood  or  bad  health,  and  dis- 
cretion was  manifested  in  allotment  of  relief. 

It  is  probable  that  Georgia  had  a  greater  volume  of 
such  relief  cases  than  had  the  other  colonies.  In  North 
Carolina  in  1771  the  House  allowed  one  hundred  fifty 
pounds  to  the  widow  of  a  government  soldier  who  had 
fought  in  the  battle  of  Alamance  and  one  hundred 
pounds  to  each  of  three  others,  because  of  their  distress 
with  a  number  of  small  children;  ''which  money  shall 
be  paid  into  the  hands  of  a  trustee,  and  by  him  applied 
to  the  purchase  of  slaves  for  the  use  of  the  said  widows 
and  children,  and  to  no  other  purpose  whatsoever." 

Old  records  contain  instances  of  family  discord  tend- 
ing to  separation.  Some  such  cases  have  already  been 
mentioned  incidentally.  In  no  southern  colony  was 
there  a  tribunal  competent  to  grant  divorce  or  separa- 
tion. The  statutes  of  these  colonies  are  silent  on  the 
subject  of  divorce  jurisdiction.  Not  a  case  has  been 
discovered  of  absolute  divorce  by  pre-revolutionary 
legislatures.  Separations  did  occur  and  separate  innin- 
tenance  was  sometimes  granted  by  the  court.  One  such 
case  in  Virginia  has  been  cited  in  another  connection. 


302       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

Again,  in  1691,  the  request  "of  Ruth  Fulcher  for  sep- 
arate maintenance  against  her  husband,  John  Fulcher," 
was  referred  to  county  court  justices,  "who,  after  hear- 
ing the  testimony,  decided  in  favor  of  the  plaintifif."  In 
1699  Mrs.  Mary  Taylor  complained  to  court  that  her 
husband  was  "so  cross  and  cruel"  that  she  could  not  live 
with  him.  She  asked  for  alimony  in  a  home  of  her 
own  where  she  would  be  "secure  from  danger."  The 
court  ordered  the  husband  to  deliver  to  her  furniture 
and  clothing  and  contribute  twelve  hundred  pounds  of 
tobacco  or  six  pounds  yearly  to  her  support. 

The  Maryland  high  court  of  chancery  took  cogni- 
zance of  suits  for  separate  alimony.  In  1689  the  case 
of  Galwith  vs.  Galwith  came  before  the  provincial 
court.  The  record  of  the  court  from  which  it  was  ap- 
pealed says  that  at  June  session,  1685,  "the  appellee,  be- 
ing the  wife  of  the  appellant,"  presented  a  petition  "set- 
ing  forth,  that  within  a  few  years  certain  false,  evil,  and 
scandalous  reports  were  raised  and  spread  abroad 
against  her  by  some  malicious  persons,"  causing  "great 
dissention  and  difference  between  her  husband  and  her- 
self, insomuch  that  he  refused  to  entertain  her  in  his 
house,  or  allow  her  a  competent  maintenance  elsewhere, 
by  which  she  was  reduced  to  great  poverty  and  want." 
In  1684  she  had  "applied  to  the  county  court  for  re- 
lief ...  at  which  time  the  court  hearing  and  con- 
sidering the  premises,  granted  an  order  that  her  husband 
should  allow  .  .  .  her  2000  wt.  of  tobacco  for  her 
maintenance  the  next  year  ensuing."  But  the  "year  was 
completed  and  ended,  and  her  said  husband  not  being 
reconciled  nor  willing"  to  take  back  her  or  the  child, 
"which  she  hitherto  had  maintained,"  she  would  shortly 
"be  brought  to  extreme  poverty  and  necessity  without 
further  assistance  from  the  court."     She  prayed  the 


Social  Censorship  in  the  South  303 

court  to  order  her  husband  to  "take  her  home  to  dwell 
with  him,  which  she  was  desirous  to  do,  or  else  that  he 
might  be  enjoined  to  allow  her  a  competent  maintenance 
for  herself  and  child."  So  he  was  commanded  to  "take 
home  his  said  wife  Jane  Galwith,  to  dwell  with  him  as 
man  and  wife  ought  to  do;  otherwise  to  allow  .  .  . 
her  3000  wt.  of  tobacco  a  year,  commencing  from  that 
day."  The  higher  tribunal  reversed  the  judgment. 
The  jurisdiction  in  suits  for  alimony,  assumed  prior  to 
the  Revolution  by  the  courts  of  equity,  was  confirmed 
by  a  later  statute. 

Troublesome  cases  did  arise  in  spite  of  southern  con- 
servatism. The  records  of  the  Maryland  provincial 
court  show  that  in  165 1  Robert  Holt  deposed  that  his 
wife  had  divers  times  threatened  his  life.  Edward 
Hudson  joined  her  in  abusing  him.  "I  goe  daily  in 
fear  of  my  life."  According  to  witnesses,  the  woman 
was  adulteress  with  Hudson.  A  woman  testified  to 
Mrs.  Holt's  disposition  to  kill  her  husband.  John  Gent 
deposes  "that  he  heard  Dorothy  Holt  cry  for  many 
curses  to  God  against  her  husband,  that  he  might  rot 
limb  from  limb,  and  that  she  would  daily  pray  to  God 
that  such  casualties  might  fall  upon  him,  and  likewise 
that  her  son  Richard  might  end  his  days  upon  the  gal- 
lows." On  one  occasion  in  this  colony  in  the  year  1658 
a  minister  gave  a  divorce  and  remarried  the  man.  Both 
men  were  indicted.  In  1701  the  petition  of  a  man  to 
the  council  for  divorce  and  illegitimizing  of  the  wife's 
children  of  the  period  of  her  elopement  was  sent  to  the 
house  with  a  proposed  bill.  The  House  summoned  the 
parties  to  appear  at  next  session. 

It  would  seem  that  orders  of  separate  maintenance 
would  be  in  efifect  decrees  of  separation.  In  seventeenth 
century  Virginia,  even  orders  of  separation  occurred 


304       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

only  at  very  long  intervals.  They  were  rarely  asked 
and  more  rarely  granted.  In  1655  Alice  Clawson  of 
Northhampton  County  secured  some  sort  of  "divorce" 
on  the  ground  that  her  husband  had  for  many  years 
lived  among  the  Indians  and  had  refused  to  give  up  his 
Indian  concubine.  In  the  Virginia  colony  marriages 
could  be  annulled  by  the  General  Court  if  the 
parties  were  within  the  forbidden  degrees.  Before 
March  12,  1684  a  man  married  his  uncle's  widow. 
How  such  a  marriage  could  occur  is  hard  to  under- 
stand. After  at  least  ten  years  of  marriage  and  after 
the  birth  of  children  the  woman  seems  to  have  been  hor- 
rified at  the  sinfulness  of  her  union  and  she  secured  a 
separation.  The  man  agreed  to  pay  alimony.  Their 
daughter  was  to  be  put  in  school  as  the  mother  should 
see  fit.  The  vestry  of  St.  John's  parish,  Baltimore 
County,  Maryland  cited  a  man  to  appear  and  explain 
his  marriage  with  his  deceased  wife's  sister.  Another 
was  summoned  for  uniting  himself  in  marriage  with  his 
late  wife's  niece.  Both  failed  to  justify  themselves  so 
the  clerk  was  ordered  to  present  them  to  the  County 
Court. 

An  interesting  personage  was  Mr.  John  Custis  of 
Virginia.  He  had  put  on  his  tombstone  this  inscrip- 
tion: "Aged  71  years  and  yet  lived  but  seven  years 
which  was  the  space  of  time  he  kept"  bachelor's  hall. 
He  and  his  wife  seem  to  have  been  very  unhappy  to- 
gether. In  1774  they  entered  into  the  "Articles  of 
Agreements  betwixt  Mr.  John  Custis  and  his  wife. 
Whereas  some  dififerences  and  quarrels  have  arisen  be- 
twixt Mr.  John  Custis  and  Frances  his  wife  concerning 
some  money,  plate  and  other  things  taken  from  him  by 
the  sd.  Frances  and  a  mor  plentiful  maintenance  for 
her.     Now  to  the  end  and  all  animostys  and  unkind- 


Social  Censorship   in  the  South  305 

ness  may  cease  and  a  perfect  love  and  friendship  may  be 
renewed  betwixt  them  they  have  mutually  agreed"  that 
she  shall  return  things  taken  and  not  repeat  the  offence. 
She  shall  not  run  in  debt  without  his  consent.  He  is  not 
to  deprive  her  of  the  plate  and  damask  during  her  life. 
She  is  to  forbear  to  call  him  vile  names  or  give  him  any 
ill  language.  He  is  to  reciprocate.  They  are  to  live 
lovingly  together  as  a  good  husband  and  wife  ought. 
She  is  not  to  meddle  with  his  business,  nor  he,  in  her 
domestic  affairs.  Half  of  the  net  produce  of  the  estate 
shall  go  to  her  for  clothing  herself  and  children  and  ed- 
ucating them  and  providing  things  necessary  for  house- 
keeping, and  physic,  so  long  as  she  live  quietly  with  him 
"and  that  he  shall  allow  for  the  maintenance  and  family 
one  bushel  of  wheat  for  every  week  and  a  sufficient 
quantity  of  Indian  corn,"  also  meat,  "and  sufficient 
quantity  of  cyder  and  brandy  if  so  much  be  made  on  the 
plantation."  If  she  shall  exceed  the  allowance  or  run 
him  in  debt  the  bond  shall  become  void  and  the  allow- 
ance cease.  She  is  to  have  the  same  house  servants  as 
now  or  others  in  their  stead;  also  an  errand  boy.  Her 
husband  shall  allow  her  fifteen  pounds  of  wool  and  fif- 
teen of  fine  dressed  flax  yearly  to  spin  for  any  use  in  the 
family.  She  may  give  away  twenty  yards  of  Virginia 
cloth  yearly  to  charity  if  so  much  remains  after  the  serv- 
ants are  clothed.  She  may  keep  a  white  servant  out  of 
the  above  allowance  provided  he  be  subject  to  her  hus- 
band. He  is  to  give  her  fifty  pounds  now,  if  so  much  be 
available,  in  order  to  get  things  started.  She  is  to  give 
account  under  oath  if  he  require,  how  said  fifty  pounds 
and  yearly  profits  are  spent. 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  some  Vir- 
ginia husbands  and  wives  advertised  each  other  with 
abuse,  in  which  the  wife  had  the  advantage.     In  one 


3o6       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

case  were  inserted  particulars  filling  half  a  column. 
The  indictment  begins  thus:  "Whereas  Ben  Banner- 
man  my  husband  has  published  a  false  and  scandalous 
account,"  etc.  A  later  writer,  taking  account  of  such 
instances,  was  impressed  with  the  fact  that  all  such 
viragoes  of  whom  he  read  date  from  the  old  country. 
"Not  one  is  found  that  does  not  refer  to  Europe;  thus 
proving  that  .  .  .  our  fair  countrywomen  were  as 
good-tempered  as  they  were  beautiful."  It  is  probable 
that  his  observations  refer  to  Richmond  newspapers."^ 

In  South  Carolina,  1731-1732,  appeared  advertise- 
ments for  three  absconding  wives.  In  Georgia,  White- 
field's  and  Wesley's  work,  it  was  said,  caused  division 
among  families. 

While  the  materials  at  hand  illustrative  of  marital 
friction  and  social  suzerainty  over  the  family  are  rather 
meager,  it  is  evident  that  the  community  recognized  as 
in  New  England  the  necessity  of  supplying  family  ne- 
cessities and  maintaining  family  integrity.  The  recog- 
nition of  wifely  claims  of  alimony  is  a  tacit  avowal  of 
woman's  parasitism.  But  some  of  the  instances  of  fam- 
ily trouble  cited  suggest  that  some  southern  women 
were  sufficiently  forceful  and  independent.  The  treat- 
ment of  forbidden  degrees  parallels  that  in  New  Eng- 
land. Religion  as  a  source  of  family  dissension  recalls 
especially  certain  incidents  in  Rhode  Island.  Protes- 
tant solvent  tendencies  operate  in  both  regions. 

In  England  under  Elizabeth  poor  children  were  to 
be  trained  for  some  trade  and  the  idle  were  to  be  pun- 
ished. In  the  reign  of  James  I.  the  statutes  of  Eliza- 
beth for  binding  children  were  utilized  for  sending 
them  to  America.  The  apprenticing  of  poor  children 
to  the  Virginia  Company  began  as  early  as  1620.     In 

148  Compare  Little,  Richmond,  22. 


Social  Censorship  in  the  South  307 

that  year  Sir  Edwin  Sandys  asked  authority  to  send  one 
hundred  children  that  had  been  "appointed  for  trans- 
portation" by  the  city  of  London  but  were  not  willing 
to  go.  The  apprenticeship  statute  of  Elizabeth  solved 
the  difficulty.  Children  and  vagrants  were  regularly 
assembled  for  shipment.  A  record  of  1627  reads: 
"There  are  many  ships  going  to  Virginia,  and  with 
them  1400  or  1500  children  which  they  have  gathered 
up  in  divers  places." 

The  jurisdiction  of  churchwardens  in  early  Virginia 
covered  indigent  orphans.  It  seems  that  they  were 
usually  indentured  till  they  were  twenty-one.  The  par- 
ish often  provided  a  sum  for  clothing.  The  wardens' 
jurisdiction  extended  also  over  parents  disposed  to  en- 
courage children  in  bad  courses.  In  1692  a  man  was 
reported  to  justices  as  an  "idle  and  lazy  person"  whose 
children  lived  by  his  begging  or  their  stealing.  He  re- 
fused to  bind  them  out.  The  churchwardens  were  in- 
structed to  do  so  if  he  continued  vagabond.  Near  the 
end  of  the  seventeenth  century,  wardens  were  empow- 
ered to  bind  out  illegitimate  boys  until  they  were  thirty. 
Poor  children  whose  parents  could  not  provide  for  them 
properly  were  bound  out  for  long  terms.  Wardens 
were  required  to  supervise  the  treatment  of  those  they 
bound  out.  If  the  master  gave  bad  treatment  the  child 
was  removed  to  another  safe  master  and  the  offender 
was  punished.  In  1657  acts  were  passed  forbidding 
any  person  to  whom  an  Indian  child  had  been  entrusted 
from  assigning  or  in  any  way  transferring  the  child.  It 
was  ordered  that  such  child  should  be  free  at  the  age  of 
twenty- five. 

Mr.  H.  Jones  wrote  of  Virginia  in  1724: 

When  there  is  a  numerous  family  of  poor  children  the  vestry 
takes  care  to  bind  them  out  apprentices,  till  they  arc  able  to 


3o8       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

maintain  themselves  by  their  own  labor;  by  which  means  they 
are  never  tormented  with  vagrant  and  vagabond  beggars. 

An  act  of  1748  provides  that  orphans  whose  estates  will 
not  support  them  shall  be  bound  as  apprentices.  They 
shall  be  taught  to  read  and  write  and  otherwise  sup- 
plied. If  ill  used  or  if  training  is  neglected  such  or- 
phans may  be  removed. 

An  instance  of  voluntary  apprenticeship  is  presented 
in  the  diary  of  Colonel  Carter: 

Billy  Beale,  the  youngest  son  of  the  late  John  Beale,  a  lad  of 
about  eighteen,  came  to  me  Saturday  on  a  letter  I  wrote  to  his 
mother.  He  brought  with  him  Mr.  Eustace's  and  Mr.  Ed- 
wards' consent,  his  guardians,  that  he  should  be  bound  to  me  in 
the  place  of  Wm.  Ball,  which  the  young  gentleman  very 
willingly  agreed  to.  .  .  He  is  ...  to  serve  me  three 
years  for  £10  the  year  in  order  to  be  instructed  in  the  steward- 
ship or  management  of  a  Virginia  estate. 

In  Maryland  about  1658  the  assembly  passed  a  meas- 
ure to  the  efifect  that  guardians  should  render  account 
of  minors'  estates.  No  child  was  to  be  placed  in  the 
hands  of  guardians  "of  a  contrary  judgment  then  that  of 
their  deceased  parents."  In  1663  the  assembly  decided 
that  no  account  be  allowed  for  anything  against  orphans' 
estates  unless  their  education  is  provided  for  out  of  the 
estate  if  it  suffices.  If  the  estate  was  too  small  to  pro- 
vide education  then  the  orphans  were  to  be  bound  ap- 
prentices to  some  "Handicraft,  trade,  or  other  person" 
till  twenty-one,  unless  a  kinsman  will  maintain  them  on 
the  interest  of  the  estate,  the  estate  itself  to  go  to  the 
orphans  at  the  years  appointed  by  law.  No  allowance 
was  to  be  made  for  excessive  funeral  expenses.  The 
Assembly  Proceedings  of  1671  record  the  experience 
that  former  acts  for  the  preservation  of  orphans'  estates 
were  inadequate.  Long  directions  are  given  for  safe- 
guarding estates.    It  is  directed  explicitly  that  children 


Social  Censorship   in   the  South  309 

are  to  be  committed  to  persons  of  the  same  religion  as 
the  parents  if  the  court  has  to  make  the  appointment. 

The  early  Friends  in  Maryland  took  especial  care  of 
the  interests  of  orphans  and  protected  their  estates  by 
extralegal  guards.  They  had  a  committee  to  look  after 
widows  and  orphans.  They  even  had  a  register  of  wills 
at  a  time  when  there  was  no  official  register  or  at  least 
none  near  at  hand.  Among  the  queries  adopted  by 
yearly  meeting  in  1725  to  be  answered  by  lower  meet- 
ings we  find  this:  "Whether  there  is  any  fatherless  or 
widows  that  want  necessarys  .  .  .  and  if  any  want 
are  they  supplied?" 

In  the  Calvert  Papers  occurs  indication  that  at  least 
one  of  the  parochial  clergy  had  under  consideration  a 
charitable  subscription  toward  the  support  of  widows 
and  the  education  of  children  of  the  brethren  left  des- 
titute. 

In  North  Carolina  the  authorities  looked  after  the 
fortunes  of  dependent  children.  Thus  a  Carolina  court 
of  1694  leaves  the  following  record: 

Upon  a  petition  exhibited  by  Thomas  Hassold  showing  that  a 
child  named  Thos.  Snoden  was  left  with  him  by  his  father-in- 
law  Edmund  Perkins  upon  condition  to  pay  him  600  pounds  of 
tobacco  per  annum  for  his  dyatt,  ordered  that  the  sd.  Thos. 
Snoden  serve  the  said  Hassold  until  his  father-in-law  come  for 
him  or  els  till  he  arrive  that  the  age  of  twenty  one  yeares. 

At  a  later  court  two  orphans  were  bound  out,  the  boy  to 
be  taught  a  trade  and  at  the  end  of  his  term  to  receive  a 
heifer.  The  girl  was  to  receive  with  her  freedom  a  cow 
and  calf  "beside  the  custom  of  the  country."  Governor 
Johnson  remarked  on  a  North  Carolina  law  entitled 
"An  act  concerning  orphans"  that  this  law  was  hi^Hily 
unjust  and  seemed  designed  to  encourage  and  protect 
unjust  guardians  that  robbed  their  wards,  "a  practice 


3IO       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

too  common  in  this  country."  At  another  time  attention 
was  called  to  the  need  of  further  security  for  the  estates 
of  widows  and  orphans. 

A  statute  recalling  northern  legislation  was  enacted 
in  1773  in  a  measure  applying  to  Newbern:  "Whereas 
sundry  idle  and  disorderly  persons  as  well  as  slaves  and 
children  under  age  do  make  a  practise  of  firing  guns 
and  pistols  within  the  said  town,"  a  fine  of  ten  shillings 
is  prescribed  for  the  offence.  If  culprits  are  under  age 
the  parent,  master,  or  guardian  must  pay. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Georgia  Board  in  Palace  Court, 
1735,  complaint  was  made  that  William  Littel,  an  in- 
fant in  Georgia,  was  deprived  of  his  patrimony  by  a 
man  that  had  married  his  mother.  The  mother  was 
now  dead  according  to  the  complaint  filed  by  the  child's 
grandfather.  The  board  ordered  guardians  appointed 
and  the  infant  to  be  kept  at  Mrs.  Parker's  and  proper 
disposal  of  the  estate  to  be  made  for  the  child's  benefit. 
The  Georgia  committee  on  accounts  in  1737  recom- 
mended a  budget  for  one  year  to  include  one  hundred 
fifty  pounds  for  the  support  of  sick,  widows,  and  or- 
phans in  the  colony.  A  Savannah  estimate  in  1739  in- 
cluded an  allowance  for  the  care  of  widows  of  trust 
servants  till  they  marry  or  enter  service  of  one  hundred 
pounds  for  the  year.  A  like  item  of  fifty  pounds  was 
made  for  Frederica. 

Martyn's  account  of  Ebenezer  in  1738-1739  says : 

They  have  built  a  large  and  convenient  house  for  the  reception 
of  orphans  and  other  poor  children,  who  are  maintained  by 
benefactions  among  the  people,  are  w^ell  taken  care  of  and  taught 
to  w^ork  according  as  their  age  and  ability  will  p)ermit. 

Whitefield  began  an  orphan  asylum  in  Georgia  in  1740. 
To  it  poor  children  were  sent  to  be  kept  partly  by  char- 
ity and  partly  by  the  produce  of  the  land  cultivated  by 


Social  Censorship  in  the  South  311 

negroes.  The  institution  did  not  flourish,  probably  on 
account  of  unhealthy  location.  The  writer  of  Itinerant 
Observations  in  America  visited  the  establishment  soon 
after  its  foundation.     He  says: 

They  were  at  dinner  when  we  arrived,  the  whole  family  at  one 
table,  and  sure  never  was  a  more  orderly  pretty  sight:  If  I 
recollect  right,  besides  Mr.  Barber  the  school-master,  and  some 
women,  there  were  near  forty  young  persons  of  both  sexes 
dressd  very  neatly  and  decently.  After  dinner  they  retired,  the 
boys  to  school  and  the  girls  to  their  spinning  and  knitting:  I 
was  told,  their  vacant  hours  were  employed  in  the  garden  and 
plantation  work. 

This  visit  to  the  Orphan  House  removed  his  prejudices 
against  it.  Habersham  said  that  many  of  the  best  or- 
phans were  removed  from  the  orphan  house  by  justices 
and  bound  as  servants. 

It  is  evident  from  the  foregoing  pages  how  great  a 
burden  was  imposed  upon  colonial  enterprises  (espe- 
cially in  Georgia)  by  the  presence  of  dependent  women 
and  children.  After  the  industrial  life  of  a  colony  was 
under  way  the  labor  of  such  could  be  utilized;  but  at 
first  they  were  a  drag.  Thus  West  wrote  to  Lord  Ash- 
ley (with  reference  to  Carolina)  in  1670: 

Arrived  the  Carolina  frigate  with  about  70  passengers     .     .     . 

and  six  servants     .     .     .     viz.  two  men  and  woeman  and  three 

small  children,  which  wilbe  a  great  charge  to  the  plantation, 

wee  having  nothing  yet  but  what  is  brought. 
A  letter  of  Lord  Ashley  in  1671  warned  against  inviting 
the  poorer  sort,  as  yet,  to  Carolina.     It  is  substantial 
men  and  their  families  that  are  needed.     "Others  relyc 
and  eate  upon  us." 

A  freeholders'  petition  to  the  Georgia  trustees  in  173H 
says: 

None  of  all  those  who  have  planted  their  land  liavr  been  able 
to  raise  sufficient  produce  to  maintain   their   families  m   bread 


312       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

kind  only,  even  though  as  much  application  and  industry  have 
been  exerted  to  bring  it  about,  as  could  be  done  by  men  engaged 
in  an  affair  on  which  they  believed  the  welfare  of  themselves 
and  posterity  so  much  depended,  and  which  they  imagined  re- 
quired more  than  ordinary  pains  to  make  succeed.  .  .  Your 
honors,  we  imagine,  are  not  insensible  of  the  numbers  that  have 
left  this  province,  not  being  able  to  support  themselves  and 
families  any  longer.  .  .  [This  paper  is  signed  by  one  hun- 
dred seventeen  freeholders.]  We  did  not  allow  widows  and 
orphans  to  subscribe  [i.e.,  sign]. 

Habersham  wrote  to  Oglethorpe  in  1741 : 

What  must  a  poor  friendless  man  do,  with  his  wife  and  chil- 
dren settled  upon  fifty  acres  of  land,  perhaps  pine  barren,  but 
suppose  it  the  best,  without  either  servants  to  help  clear  or  steers 
to  plow  the  ground? 

Planters'  extravagance  sometimes  forced  a  resort  to 
the  frontier.  In  colonial  Virginia  the  father  sometimes 
left  his  son  expensive  habits,  a  depleted  plantation,  and 
a  heavy  debt.  Then  degrading  poverty,  untimely  death, 
or  migration  to  the  West  were  the  alternatives.  Many 
families  carried  to  the  wilderness  their  social  refine- 
ment and  dear-bought  experience  and  commenced  life 
afresh  on  a  less  splendid  scale. 


XIX.    SERVITUDE  AND  SEXUALITY  IN  THE 
SOUTHERN  COLONIES 

The  problem  of  sex  morals  in  the  colonial  South  was 
very  largely  an  economic  question  and  was  so  regarded 
by  the  authorities.  Sexual  morality  was  at  a  low  ebb. 
Very  early,  laws  had  to  be  passed  on  this  point. 

By  a  Maryland  act  of  1650,  renewed  in  1654,  adul- 
tery and  fornication  were  to  be  censured  and  punished 
as  the  governor  and  council  or  authorized  officials 
should  think  fit,  "not  extending  to  life  or  member."  In 
1658  an  act  was  passed  as  follows: 

Whereas  divers  women  servants  within  this  Province  not  have- 
ing  husbands  living  with  them,  have  bene  gotten  with  child  in 
the  tyme  of  their  servitude  to  the  great  dishonour  of  God  and 
the  apparent  damage  to  the  masters.  .  .  For  remedy  where- 
of bee  it  enacted  .  .  .  that  every  such  mother  of  a  bastard 
child  not  able  sufficiently  to  prove  the  part>'  charged  to  be  the 
begetter  of  such  child,  in  every  such  case  the  mother  of  such 
child  shall  only  be  lyable  to  satisfy  the  damages  soe  sustained 
by  servitude,  or  other  wayes  .  .  .  provided  that  when  the 
mother  of  any  such  child  as  aforesaid  shalbe  able  to  prove  her 
charge  either  by  sufficient  testimony  of  wittnesses  or  confession, 
then  the  party  charged,  if  a  servant  to  satisfie  half  the  said  dam- 
ages, if  a  freeman  then  the  whole  damages  by  servitude  or  oth- 
erwise as  aforesaid.  And  if  any  such  mother  .  .  .  be  able 
to  prove  .  .  .  that  the  said  party  charged  (being  a  single 
person  and  a  freeman)  did  before  the  begitting  of  such  child 
promise  her  marriage,  that  then  hee  shall  performc  his  promise 
to  her,  or  recompense  her  abuse,  as  the  court  before  whom  such 
matter  is  brought  shall  see  convenient,  the  quail ity  and  condi- 
tion of  the  persons  considered. 

This  act  was  to  continue  for  three  years  or  to  the  etui 


314       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

of  the  next  General  Assembly.  According  to  Maryland 
law,  polygamy,  sodomy,  and  rape  were  capital  offences. 
The  author  of  Leah  and  Rachel  notes  regarding  Vir- 
ginia that  "if  any  be  known  .  .  .  to  .  .  .  com- 
mit whoredome  .  .  .  there  are  .  .  .  severe 
and  wholesome  laws."  An  act  of  1657-1658  deprived 
males  guilty  of  bastardy  of  the  right  to  testify  in  court 
or  hold  office -a  severe  penalty  when  everyone  wanted 
some  office.  But  the  colony  could  not  afford  to  support 
illegitimates!  An  act  was  passed  giving  the  master  an 
additional  time  of  service  if  a  bastard  was  born  to  his 
servant.  This  law  put  a  premium  on  immorality  and 
there  seem  to  have  been  masters  base  enough  to  profit 
by  it.  The  evil  was  restrained  by  an  act  of  1662  which 
provided  that  the  maid  servant  should  be  sold  away 
from  her  master  in  such  cases  without  compensation  to 
him  for  the  loss  of  her  time.  By  a  law  of  1705  "every 
person  not  a  servant  or  slave,  convicted  of  adultery  or 
fornication  by  the  oaths  of  two  or  more  credible  wit- 
nesses, or  confession,  shall,  for  every  offense  of  adultery, 
pay  1000  lbs.  of  tobacco  and  cost;  and  of  fornication, 
500  .  .  .  to  be  recovered  by  .  .  .  churchwar- 
dens of  parish  where  offense  was  committed."  In  de- 
fault of  payment  he  should  receive  twenty-five  lashes. 
By  an  act  of  1727  the  mother  of  a  bastard  was  subject  to 
fine  or  flogging.  The  person  in  whose  house  the  birth 
occurred  was  responsible  for  giving  notice.  A  servant 
woman  had  to  serve  an  extra  year  or  pay  her  owner  one 
thousand  pounds  of  tobacco.  The  reputed  father,  if 
free,  had  to  give  security  to  maintain  the  child.  If  he 
was  a  servant  he  had  to  render  satisfaction  to  the  parish, 
after  expiration  of  his  term,  for  keeping  the  child.  If 
the  master  was  the  father  he  could  claim  no  extra  serv- 


Servitude  and  Sexuality  in  the  South         315 

ice  but  the  parish  could  sell  the  mother  for  one  extra 
year. 

North  Carolina  bastardy  laws  were  similar  to  Vir- 
ginia's. A  law  of  1715  provided  that  a  woman  servant 
bearing  a  bastard  was  liable  to  two  years  extra  servitude 
besides  punishment  for  fornication.  If  she  came  into 
the  province  with  child  she  was  not  liable.  If  with 
child  by  the  master  she  was  to  be  sold  for  two  years 
after  expiration  of  her  time;  the  money  to  go  to  the 
parish.  The  act  left  the  master  unpunished  except  as  he  • 
lost  her  service  or  was  liable  for  fornication  or  adultery. 
The  act  of  1741  was  milder.  "Whereas  many  women 
are  begotten  with  child  by  free  men  or  servants,  to  the 
great  prejudice  of  their  master  or  mistress"  such  must 
serve  one  year  extra.  If  the  master  is  the  father  the 
woman  should  be  sold  by  the  church  wardens  for  one 
year.  There  was  no  punishment  for  the  seducing  mas- 
ter. Instructions  to  Governor  Dobbs  in  1754  directed 
that  laws  against  adultery,  fornication,  polygamy,  and 
incest  were  to  be  enforced  and  extended. 

A  recent  writer  says  that  the  sanctity  of  the  marriage 
vow  was  inviolable  in  early  Maryland.  Citations  that 
might  be  given  for  the  period  between  1650  and  1657 
convey  a  quite  different  impression;  the  extant  record 
of  fornication  and  adultery  is  appalling. 

Alsop  in  his  Character  of  Maryland  suggests  that  , 
while  male  immigrants  had  less  luck  than  female  in  get- 
ting mates  unless  they  were  good  talkers  and  persuaders, 
this  fluent  sort  stood  a  chance  of  injecting  "themselves 
in  the  time  of  their  servitude  into  the  private  and  re- 
served favor  of  their  mistress,  if  age  speak  their  master 
deficient."  An  Episcopal  rector  in  1676  wrote  of  Mary- 
land:   "All  notorious  vices  are  committed ;  so  that  it  is 


3i6       The  American  Family ~ Colonial  Period 

become  a  Sodom  of  uncleanness,  and  a  pest  house  of 
iniquity." 

In  1685  Anne  Thompson,  convicted  of  bigamy,  was 
pardoned  on  agreement  to  abandon  the  second  husband. 
In  1696, 

Vpon  representacon    .    .    .    that  Thomas  Hedge  Clerk    .     .     . 

had   lately  been  marryed   to   another  woman   notwithstanding 

his  having  a  wife  now  living  in  England  and  that  one  Lieut. 

Coll.  Richardson  tho  conscious  thereof  did  presume  to  perform 

tht  office;  ordered  thereupon  that  Mr  Attorney  and  Sollictor 

Genii,  make  due  proceedings  agt  them. 

About  1697  Governor  Nicholson  reported  to  the  Board 
of  Trade  that  "some  of  the  men  having  two  wives,  and 
some  of  the  women,  two  husbands,  whoring  .  .  . 
were  too  much  practised  in  the  countrey,  and  seldom 
any  were  punished  for  these  sins." 

A  letter  of  the  reverend  Thomas  Bray  in  1702  says: 

How  else  could  it  be  that  such  an  infamous  vile  man  as  Holt 
who  is  expelled  out  of  Virginia  for  adultery  should  be  received 
in  Maryland  and  presented  to  one  of  the  best  livings  in  the 
province.  And  were  any  one  amongst  you  to  govern  the  clergy 
such  a  miscreant  who  I  hear  has  attempted  to  poison  his  own 
wife  and  has  lately  had  a  bastard  by  the  woman  he  kept  would 
have  been  so  far  from  being  permitted  to  enjoy  his  place  and  to 
exercise  the  ministry  of  his  holy  calling  that  he  would  not  only 
long  ere  this  have  been  deprived  of  his  living  but  degraded  from 
his  function.  I  hear  there  is  another  scandalous  vagrant  come 
into  the  province,  one  Butt  as  wicked  as  the  other  and  yet  put 
into  a  place. 

In  All  Saints  Parish  in  1736, 

Mr.  Richard  Blake,  vestryman,  reported  to  this  vestry  that 
himself    and    Mr.    Jas.    Hughes    church    warden    forewarned 

Greorge  and  Mary  not  to  cohabit  tegether  for  the 

future  upon  their  penalty  as  the  law  in  that  case  provides. 

In  the  province  at  a  later  date  a  case  of  bastardy  and 
forced  marriage  was  burlesqued  by  vulgar  officials. 


Servitude  and  Sexuality  in  the  South         317 

In  Virginia  persons  were  presented  for  adultery  and 
fornication  by  the  church-wardens  at  the  annual  visita- 
tions; and  the  culprits  had  to  submit  to  fines  or  whip- 
ping. The  following  judgment  was  given  by  the  gov- 
ernor and  council  in  1627: 

Upon  the  presentment  of  the  church-wardens  of  Stanley  Hun- 
dred for  suspicion  of  incontinency  betweene  Henry  Kinge  and 
the  wife  of  John  Jackson,  they  lyinge  together  in  her  husband's 
absence;  it  is  thought  fitt  that  the  sayd  Kinge  shall  remove  his 
habitation  from  her,  and  not  to  use  or  frequent  her  company 
until  her  husband's  return. 

In  1 63 1,  "Because  Edw.  Grymes  lay  with  Alice  West 
he  gives  security  not  to  marry  any  woman  till  further 
order  from  the  governor  and  council." 

Bruce  in  his  Institutional  History  of  Virginia  in  the  . 
Seventeenth  Century  treats  at  length  of  sex  sin.  He  as- 
serts that  one  of  the  commonest  sins  committed  in  the 
lower  levels  of  society  was  bastardy.  Numbers  of 
women  servants  came  over  either  free  or  bound  by  in- 
denture. These  generally  belonged  to  the  lowest  class 
in  the  home  country  and  not  all  were  trained  in  virtue. 
In  Virginia  as  contract  servants  it  was  not  easy  for  them 
to  marry.  Masters  did  not  want  this  species  of  cattle 
laid  by  for  pregnancy  and  childbirth  with  the  risk  of 
death.  Licentious  masters  were  in  a  position  also  to 
utilize  the  sex  services  of  such  as  they  chose.  Morccwer 
the  unfortunate  women  were  thrown  in  contact  with  the 
lowest  class  of  men  and  immorality  was  practically  in- 
evitable especially  as  kinship  ties  and  responsibility  had 
been  broken  by  the  migration. 

At  a  very  early  period  punishment  was  inflicted  for 
incontinence  even  tho  the  guilty  persons  had  married 
and  their  children  had  been  born  in  wedlock.  In  1642 
a  couple  were  arrested  for  living  unlawfully  toj^cthcr. 


3i8       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

They  were  sentenced  to  thirty  lashes  each  and  there- 
after were  kept  apart  till  legally  united.  Another  man 
for  like  offense  was  compelled  to  give  one  hundred  fifty 
pounds  of  tobacco  towards  the  erection  of  stocks.  The 
same  year  a  woman  was  convicted  of  bearing  two  bas- 
tards. J.  Pope,  summoned  for  improper  intimacy  with 
a  woman,  was  tried  and  sentenced  to  build  a  ferry  boat 
or  receive  forty  lashes  and  acknowledge  his  fault  in  the 
parish  church.  In  another  case  the  father  of  a  bastard 
was  sentenced  to  go  before  the  congregation  and  con- 
fess. The  mother  was  to  receive  thirty  lashes  on  her 
bare  back.  One  woman  led  into  church  was  impeni- 
tent. She  was  lashed  and  required  to  appear  again.  It 
was  generally  the  man  that  escaped  whipping. 

After  the  middle  of  the  century  bastardy  became 
more  frequent  than  ever,  owing  to  the  increase  in 
number  of  female  domestic  and  agricultural  servants. 
The  burden  of  maintaining  illegitimates  weighed  heav- 
ily on  the  colony.  In  the  House  of  Burgesses  Colonel 
Lawrence  Smith  offered  a  petition  in  which  after  stress- 
ing "the  excessive  charge"  that  rested  on  the  parishes 
"by  means  of  bastards  born  of  servant  women"  he  asked 
for  more  stringent  measures.  The  House,  however, 
deemed  the  existing  laws  sufficient. 

One  of  the  church  wardens'  most  important  duties 
was  to  protect  the  parish  from  the  expense  of  bastards. 
Sometimes  the  father  of  a  bastard  was  required  to  give 
bond  to  protect  the  parish  from  expense  while  the 
mother  was  in  his  service.  Always  the  master,  if  not 
guilty  of  the  bastardy,  could  pay  such  sum  as  would 
safeguard  the  parish.  Servants  would  have  to  serve 
extra  time. 

In  1663  fourteen  cases  of  bastardy  were  tried  at  one 
county  court  session.     In   1688,  at  least  three  servant 


Servitude  and  Sexuality  in   the  South         319 

women  of  one  master  gave  birth  to  illegitimate  chil- 
dren. If  wardens  neglected  to  bind  till  the  age  of 
thirty  unprovided-for  bastards  they  might  be  prose- 
cuted in  county  court. 

County  courts  protected  women  of  loose  reputation 
from  undue  severity.  In  1693  Elizabeth  Paine  was  or- 
dered by  the  wardens  of  York  to  leave  the  plantation 
where  she  was  living.  She  appealed  as  the  ground  was 
ready  for  a  crop  and  she  did  not  want  to  lose  it  from 
herself  and  her  "poor  children."  The  court  granted 
leave  to  stay  until  the  crop  was  secured. 

The  court  of  Norfolk  County,  1695,  too'^  ^^he  follow- 
ing action : 

Whereas   Captain   J H hath   been   prsented   to   this 

court  by  the  grand  jury  for  entertaining  another  man's  wife, 

contrary  to  lawe,  the  woman  being  the  wife  of  B S 

blacksmith  late  of  this  county,  who  hath  been  sometimes  absent 

out  of  this  county  and  the  said  Capt.  J H apearing 

upon  sumons  from  this  court,  pleading  in  his  vindication,  this 
court  hath  thought  fit  and  doe  order  that  the  church  wardens 

of  Eliza  R,  parrish  doe  repair  forthwith  to  the  said  Capt  H 

house  and  admonish  him  and  the  said  woman  not  to  frequent  or 
be  seene  in  each  other's  company  for  the  future  and  that  the  said 

Capt  H put  her  away  from  his  house  imeadiately  after  such 

admonicon  and  make  report  of  theire  soe  doing  at  the  next  court 

and  that  the  said  H doe  accordingly  put  the  sayd  woman 

away  from  his  house  and  that  they  doe  not  frequent  each  other's 
company  hereafter  upon  payne  of  the  penalty  of  the  lawcs  in 

such  cases  provided  and  Sd.  H pay  cost. 

Stories  of  scandal  in  high  society  can  be  found  in  the 
histories  of  all  old  Virginia  and  Carolina  towns."" 

The  contemporary  authorities  usually  speak  in  un- 
favorable terms  of  the  morals  of  the  first  settlers  in 
North  Carolina.     Graffenried  speaks  of  lewd  fellows 

1*"  Giddings.     Natural  History  of  American  Morals,  34. 


320       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

among  the  Palatines.    The  reverend  Mr.  Urmstone  in 

a  letter  from  the  colony  dated  171 1  says: 

This  is  a  nest  of  the  most  notorious  profligates  on  earth. 
Women  forsake  their  husbands  come  in  here  and  live  with  other 
men  they  are  sometimes  followed  then  a  pull  is  given  to  the 
husband  and  madam  stays  with  her  gallant  a  report  is  spread 
abroad  that  the  husband  is  dead  then  they  become  man  and  wife 
make  a  figure  and  pass  for  people  of  worth  and  dignity.  What 
to  do  with  such  I  know  not  .  .  .  for  I  have  not  been 
wanting  in  my  endeavors. 

Brickell  says  of  the  North  Carolinians  in  1737: 
"The  generality  of  them  live  after  a  loose  and  lascivious 
manner."     In  1760  Woodmason  said: 

The  manners  of  the  North  Carolinians  in  general  are  vile  and 
corrupt  and  the  whole  country  is  a  stage  of  debauchery  dissolute- 
ness and  corruption,  and  how  can  it  be  otherwise?  The  people 
are  composed  of  the  outcasts  of  all  the  other  colonies.  .  . 
Marriages  (through  want  of  Clergy)  are  performed  by  every 
ordinary  magistrate  -  poligamy  is  very  common  -  celibacy  much 
more  —  bastardy  no  disrepute,  concubinage  general. 

The  reverend  gentleman  quoted  above  was  later 
forced  to  turn  his  son  adrift.  "He  got  a  servant  wench 
with  child  who  had  two  years  to  serve  rendered  her  not 
only  useless  but  even  a  burden  to  me  yet  am  forced  to 
keep  her  not  knowing  where  to  get  a  better."  But  a  let- 
ter to  the  secretary  accuses  this  clerical  gentleman  of 
drunkenness,  profanity,  and  lewdness. 

A  Carolina  general  court  in  1727  entertained 

A  presentment  against  Solomon  Hews  for  leaving  his  lawful 
wife  and  cohabiting  with  another  woman  in  which  time  the 
woman  have  had  two  children.  .  .  A  presentment  against 
John  Brown  for  having  left  his  wife  .  .  .  and  cohabits 
with  another  which  he  acknowledges  to  be  his  lawful  wife  both 
of  said  women  within  this  Grovernment. 

On  another  occasion  a  grand  jury  presented  James  Boul- 
ton  for  cohabiting  with  and  seducing  Mary  Jennings 


Servitude  and  Sexuality  in  the  South         321 

from  her  husband.  Brickell  notes  an  Indian's  attempt 
to  seduce  a  planter's  maid.  Locke's  Carolina  Memoirs 
refer  to  one  "O'Syllivan  .  .  .  illnatured  buggerer 
of  children."  At  one  time,  probably  about  1760,  a 
minister  complained  against  his  vestry: 

One  of  them  declared  that  the  money  he  is  obliged  to  give  to 
the  maintaining  a  minister  he  would  rather  give  to  a  kind  girl. 
Another  is  a  person  who  committed  incest  with  his  own  uncle's 
widow  and  has  a  child  by  her  which  he  owns  publicly. 

The  House  in  1766  appointed  a  committee  to  investi- 
gate a  complaint  of  Solomon  Ewell  of  the  elopement  of 
his  wife  and  her  living  in  adultery.  Solomon  asked 
divorce. 

Charges  of  loose  living  in  early  North  Carolina  may 
have  been  exaggerated.  But  probably  the  inaccessi- 
bility of  the  settlements  and  the  lack  of  religion  and  ed- 
ucation favored  the  coming  of  undesirables. 

Georgia  was  not  free  from  sex  sin.  For  Savannah, 
1735,  we  find  the  following  record: 

Att  our  last  Court  Wm.  Watkins  .  .  .  was  prosecuted 
for  misdemeanor  and  the  late  wife  of  James  Willoughby  for 
Bigamy.  .  .  Watkins  in  April  had  procured  a  person  un- 
known ...  to  marry  him  to  the  widow  ...  in  con- 
sequence of  which  she  proved  with  child ;  soon  after  this,  he  re- 
ceived advice  by  letter  and  message  that  his  wife  was  alive  and 
well  in  England;  and  he  had  not  made  his  marriage  publick, 
he  proposed  to  her,  that  as  he  had  a  wife  in  F'ngland,  he  should 
be  liable  to  be  troubled,  and  therefore  dared  not  own  it;  and 
as  she  was  with  child  the  world  would  soon  discover  it,  and  be- 
lieve she  had  played  the  whore,  therefore  persuaded  her  to 
marry  R.  Mellichamp.  They  were  married  by  Mr.  Irving 
Watkins  being  present;  Mellichamp  soon  discovered  her  being 
with  child,  and  his  own  misfortunes  in  marrying  her;  Watkins 
and  the  woman  were  at  Richard  Turner's  one  night,  when 
Mellichamp  came  in  and  desired  her  to  go  liotne,  but  as  she 
was  not  willing,  he  said,  that  In-  would  sell  sucli  a  wife  for  a 


322       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

groat  at  any  time,  declaring  he  believed  she  loved  Watkins 
better  than  he;  one  in  the  company  jocularly  said  he  would 
give  a  shilling  for  her,  severall  others  bidding  by  way  of  auc- 
tion she  was  declared  to  be  sold  for  £5  sterling;  Mellichamp 
seemed  satisfyed,  and  the  woman  declared  she  would  go  with  the 
buyer  and  behaved  immodestly.  One  Langford  then  in  com- 
pany at  their  desire  conveyed  them  to  his  lodging,  where  they 
were  bedded  in  publick,  and  the  £5  paid  and  accepted  of.  .  . 
Watkins  was  whipt  (unpittyed)  on  a  muster  day  at  the  carts 
tail  round  the  town  and  remains  in  gaol  for  want  of  surety. 
The  woman  is  held  in  gaol  as  being  with  child ;  but  as  we  think 
her  crime  is  within  the  benefit  of  the  clergy  her  confinement  is 
enlarged ;  Langford  was  very  instrumental  in  the  discovery  of 
the  whole  matter  and  gave  a  clear  evidence  therefore  was  only 
bound  over  for  his  future  good  behavior,  and  Mellichamp,  be- 
ing a  sufferer  was  acquitted. 

One  of  the  Wesleys'  first  experiences  was  with  two 
coarse  women  with  tainted  virtue  who  they  supposed 
had  repented.  The  brothers  persuaded  Oglethorpe  to 
accept  the  women  as  respectable  and  then  attempted  to 
reform  the  other  female  colonists. 

Illegitimacy  sometimes  led  to  infanticide.  In  Mary- 
land, 1656,  a  woman  was  accused  (probably  on  sus- 
picion of  bastardy)  of  murdering  her  child.  A  jury 
of  women  was  appointed  to  examine  her.  They  testi- 
fied that  she  had  not  had  a  child  within  the  time  in 
question.  In  other  case  a  wretched  girl  bore  an  ille- 
gitimate child  in  secret.  It  died  soon  and  was  privately 
buried  by  the  mother.  According  to  English  law  this 
furtiveness  was  proof  presumptive  of  infanticide  and 
the  girl  was  condemned  to  death.  But  the  council, 
considering  that  the  body  showed  no  marks  of  violence 
and  that  its  being  wrapped  in  clean  linen  showed  "a 
tender  care  and  affection  on  the  part  of  the  mother," 
commuted  the  sentence  to  a  fine  of  six  thousand  pounds 
of  tobacco.    Thereupon  her  old  father  sent  a  pathetic 


Servitude  and  Sexuality  in  the  South         323 

petition  to  the  council  representing  that  he  was  miser- 
ably poor  and  crushed  with  grief  and  shame.  The  fine 
was  then  reduced  to  five  hundred  pounds,  or  between 
four  and  five  pounds  sterling.  In  171 1  in  Virginia 
there  was  an  act  to  prevent  murder  of  bastard  children. 
In  North  Carolina  at  an  early  date  occurred  the  case  of 
a  woman  accused  of  killing  her  bastard  child.  She  was 
found  not  guilty. 

The  Revolution  doubtless  brought  a  degree  of  the  sex 
vice  that  is  inseparable  from  warfare.  In  seaboard 
Georgia,  women  and  children  were  driven  from  their 
homes.  "The  obscene  language  which  was  used  and 
personal  insults  .  .  .  offered  to  the  tender  sex  soon 
rendered  a  residence  in  the  country  insupportable." 
They  were  obliged  to  abandon  the  country  in  great 
distress. 

The  presence  of  African  slaves  and  Indians  early 
gave  rise  to  the  problem  of  miscegenation.  It  took 
some  time  for  standards  of  race  integrity  to  become 
thoroly  set  and  indeed  while  they  did  take  shape  in 
sanctimonious  professional  abhorrence  they  never  elim- 
inated intercourse  between  the  male  white  and  women  • 
of  the  inferior  race.  It  was  otherwise  with  the  females  . 
of  the  white  race.    They  belonged  to  their  males. 

In  1609  a  sermon  was  preached  at  Whitechapel  in 
presence  of  many  adventurers  and  planters  for  Virginia 
from  Genesis,  xii,  1-3.     The  sermon  taught  that 

Abrams  posteritie  [must]  keepe  to  themselves.  They  may  not 
marry  nor  give  in  marriage  to  the  heathen,  that  arc  utuir- 
cumcised.  .  .  The  breaking  of  this  rule,  may  brcake  tin* 
necke  of  all  good  successe  of  this  voyage,  whereas  by  kt-eping 
the  feare  of  God,  the  planters  in  shorte  time,  by  the  blessing  of 
God,  may  grow  into  a  nation  formidable  to  all  the  enemies 
of  Christ. 
The  only  marriage  with  an  Indian  during  tin-  com- 


324       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

pany's  rule  was  in  the  case  of  Pocahontas.  But  in  the 
early  days  no  great  antipathy  to  amalgamation  with  the 
Indians  was  shown.  Through  most  of  the  seventeenth 
century  there  was  no  prohibition  of  marriage  with  In- 
dians. Numerous  instances  of  marriage  with  Indians 
are  on  record.  There  are  instances  in  which  the  county 
courts  granted  express  permission  to  a  white  man  to 
espouse  an  Indian  servant. 

Pocahontas's  marriage  was  thought  to  be  a  surety  of 
peace  and  so  it  turned  out  to  be.  Sir  Thomas  Dale 
(with  a  wife  in  England)  asked  Powhatan  for  the  hand 
of  a  favorite  daughter.  He  meant  to  live  for  the  re- 
mainder of  his  days  in  Virginia,  he  said,  and  he  wanted 
to  conclude  with  Powhatan  a  "perpetual  friendship." 
Powhatan  was  not  beguiled;  he  replied  that  his  daugh- 
ter was  already  disposed  of.  But  the  incident  is  an  in- 
cisive commentary  on  the  standards  of  the  day.  Rolfe, 
even,  failed  to  provide  in  his  will  for  his  child  by 
Pocahontas. 

Governor  Charles  Calvert  wrote  to  Lord  Baltimore 
in  1672: 

Major  Fitzherberts'  brother  who  maryed  the  Indian  Brent, 
has  ciuilly  parted  with  her  and  (as  I  suppjose)  will  neuer  care 
to  bed  with  her  more,  soe  that  your  Lopp  need  not  to  fear  any 
ill  consequence  from  that  match  butt  what  has  already  happened 
to  the  poore  man  who  vnaduisedly  threw  himself  away  vpon  her 
in  hopes  of  a  great  portion,  which  now  is  come  to  little. 

Doctor  Brickell  wrote  of  North  Carolina: 

I  knew  an  European  man  that  lived  many  years  amongst  the  In- 
dians and  had  a  child  by  one  of  their  women,  having  bought 
her  as  they  do  their  wives,  and  afterwards  married  a  Christian. 
Sometimes  after,  he  came  to  the  Indian  town  [and  wanted]  to 
pass  away  a  night  with  his  former  mistress  as  usual,  but  she 
made  answer,  that  she  then  had  forgot  that  she  ever  knew  him, 
and  that  she  never  lay  with  another  woman's  husband ;  so  fell 
a  crying,  took  up  the  child  she  had  by  him,  and  went  out  of  the 


Servitude  and  Sexuality  in  the  South         325 

cabin  in  great  disorder,  altho  he  used  all  possible  means  to 
pacify  her.  .  .  She  would  never  see  him  afterwards,  or  be 
reconciled.  .  .  There  are  several  Europeans  and  other  trad- 
ers which  travel  and  abide  amongst  them  for  a  long  space  of 
time,  sometimes  a  year,  two  or  three,  and  those  men  commonly 
have  their  Indian  wives  or  mistresses,  whereby  they  soon  learn 
the  Indian  tongue  and  keep  in  good  friendship  with  them,  be- 
sides having  the  satisfaction  they  have  of  a  bed-fellow,  they  find 
these  girls  very  serviceable  to  them  upon  several  occasions; 
especially  in  dressing  their  victuals,  and  instructing  them  in  the 
affairs  and  customs  of  the  country.  .  .  One  great  misfor- 
tune that  generally  attend  the  Christians  that  converse  with 
these  women  as  husbands,  is  that  they  get  children  by  them, 
which  are  seldom  otherwise  brought  up  or  educated  than  in  the 
wretched  state  of  infidelity  [for  according  to  Indian  custom,  the 
children  go  to  the  mother,  and  it  is  hard  for  the  white  men  to 
get  them  away.  Some  white  men  stay  thus  permanently  among 
the  Indians].  These  Indian  girls  that  have  frequently  con- 
versed with  the  Europeans,  never  much  care  for  the  conversa- 
tion of  their  own  countrymen  afterwards. 

One  trader  from  the  Carolinas  is  said  to  have  boasted 
that  he  had  upwards  of  seventy  children  and  grand- 
children among  the  Indians. 

Bosomworth,  chaplain  in  Oglethorpe's  regiment, 
married  a  half-breed  much  respected  by  the  Indians. 
He  hoped  thus  to  get  a  great  fortune. 

Mixture  with  negroes  was  a  more  serious  southern 
problem  and  called  forth  severe  penalization.  White 
servitude,  assimilating  European  men  and  women  to  the  • 
servile  status,  was  a  potent  factor  in  the  demoralization. 
Planters  sometimes  married  women  servants  to  nci^rocs 
in  order  to  transform  the  women  and  their  offspring 
into  slaves.'"'*' 

Something  of  the  colonial  attitude  in  the  South  on  the 
question  of  miscegenation  may  be  gathered  from  sut  li     • 
terminology  as  "unnatural,"  "inordinate"  unions.    The 

150  Compare  McCormac.     While  Servitude  in  Maryland,  67-70. 


326       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

offending  white  "defiled  his  body"  and  "abused  himself 
to  the  dishonor  of  God  and  shame  of  Christianity." 

Slavery  of  course  had  small  regard  for  sex  morality 
on  the  part  of  the  chattels.  Something  of  the  economic 
spirit  at  work  may  be  seen  even  in  the  legal  protection 
given  to  the  slaves.  In  Virginia  even  before  1705  the 
courts  attempted  to  check  the  growth  of  the  right  to  sep- 
arate husband  and  wife  and  larger  children.  Devises 
of  children,  particularly  of  children  not  born  before  the 
testator's  death  (which  devises  were  adjudged  void), 
were  declared  by  the  general  court  in  1695  to  be  neither 
"convenient  nor  humanitarian"  as  the  mother's  owner 
would  not  be  careful  of  her  in  pregnancy  nor  of  the 
child  "and  many  children  might  hence  die;  and  besides 
it  was  an  unreasonable  charge"  without  benefit  to  the 
owner  of  the  mother. 

In  North  Carolina  in  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth 
century  in  disposing  of  slaves  some  care  was  used  not  to 
part  the  men  and  their  wives  and  children.  Such  an  in- 
stance is  shown  in  the  will  of  Cullen  Pollock  in  1749. 
Doctor  Brickell  wrote  that  negro  marriages  had  little 
ceremony.  If  the  woman  returned  the  pledge  the  union 
was  ruptured.  If  a  woman  proved  unfruitful  by  her 
first  husband  the  planter  required  her  to  take  a  series  if 
necessary  for  the  sake  of  procuring  offspring.  Rivals 
fought  desperately.  Slave  children,  he  said,  were  care- 
fully brought  up  and  provided  for  by  planters.  Negro 
children  wore  little  or  no  clothing  save  in  winter. 
Many  young  men  and  women  worked  in  hot  weather 
nude  save  for  a  piece  of  cloth  to  "cover  their  nakedness." 

The  author  of  Itinerant  Observations  in  America 
who  visited  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  Carolina,  wrote 
that  with  slavery 

Several  brutal  and  scandalous  customs     .     .     .     are  too  much 


Servitude  and  Sexuality  in  the  South         327 

practised:  such  as  giving  them  a  number  of  wives,  or  in  short, 
setting  them  up  for  stallions  to  a  whole  neighborhood ;  when  it 
has  been  prov'd,  I  think,  unexceptionably  that  polygamy  rather 
destroys  than  multiplies  the  species  .  .  .  and  were  these 
masters  to  calculate,  they'd  find  a  regular  procreation  would 
make  them  greater  gainers. 

John  Woolman  in  1757  wrote  after  a  trip  through 
Maryland  to  Virginia: 

Many  of  the  white  people  in  these  provinces  take  little  or  no 
care  of  negro  marriages ;  and  when  negros  marry  after  their  own 
way,  some  make  so  little  account  of  these  marriages  that  with 
views  of  outward  interest  they  often  part  men  from  their  wives 
by  selling  them  far  asunder,  which  is  common  when  estates  are 
sold  by  executors  at  vendue.  .  .  Men  and  women  have 
many  times  scarcely  clothes  sufficient  to  hide  their  nakedness, 
and  boys  and  girls  ten  and  twelve  years  old  are  often  quite 
naked  amongst  their  master's  children.  Some  of  our  society, 
and  some  of  the  society  called  Newlights,  use  some  endeavors 
to  instruct  those  they  have  in  reading;  but  in  common  this  is 
not  only  neglected,  but  disapproved. 

Instructions  by  Richard  Corbin  to  an  agent  for  the 
management  of  a  plantation  in  Virginia  in  1759  direct 
as  follows: 

The  breeding  wenches  more  particularly  you  must  instruct  the 
overseers  to  be  kind  and  indulgent  to,  and  not  force  them  when 
with  child  upon  any  service  or  hardship  that  will  be  injurious  to 
them  and  that  they  have  every  necessary  when  in  that  condition 
that  is  needful  for  them,  and  the  children  to  be  well  l<M)ked 
after  and  to  give  them  every  spring  and  fall  the  Jerusalem  oak 
seed  for  a  week  together  and  that  none  of  them  suflfer  in  time 
of  sickness  for  want  of  proper  care. 

In  North  Carolina  the  reverend  Mr.  Reed  wrote  in 
1760: 

I   baptise  all  those  blacks  whose  masters  become  sureties   for 
them,  but  never  baptize  any  negro  infants  or  children  upon  any 
other  terms. 
An  advertisement  of  a  runaway  in  the  Virginia  Gn- 


328       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

zette,  1767,  illustrates  the  scattering  of  slave  families: 
''Has  a  wife  at  Little  Town,  and  a  father  at  Mr.  Philip 
Burt's  quarter."  A  slave-owner  in  North  Carolina  in 
1774  wrote:  "I  have  a  Congoer  who  wants  to  be  sold 
along  with  his  wife  and  two  children.  I  do  not  wish 
to  sell  him,  tho  I  would  not  refuse  to  do  so,  if  I  find  he 
will  not  stay  here."  A  letter  of  John  Peck  (presum- 
ably in  Virginia)  in  1788  says:  "My  man  George 
Jones  has  a  wife  at  Colespoint." 

The  conditions  of  slavery  and  servitude  were  condu- 
cive to  rape  by  negroes  and  whites.  In  Virginia  in  the 
seventeenth  century  we  find  reference  to  strong  meas- 
ures to  be  taken  for  apprehending  Robin,  a  negro  that 
had  ravished  a  white  woman.  In  the  latter  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century  the  rigor  of  the  criminal  code  was 
lessened.  Slaves  attempting  rape,  etc.,  had  been  cas- 
trated. But  later  the  ability  of  county  court  to  order 
castration  was  limited  to  cases  of  blacks  convicted  of  at- 
tempt to  ravish  white  women. 

The  efifect  of  slavery  on  the  morals  of  white  children 
was  beginning  to  be  evident.  The  author  of  the  Itin- 
erant Observations  previously  cited  says  with  reference 
to  the  using  of  negro  males  as  "stallions:" 

A  sad  consequence  of  this  practice  is,  that  their  childrens  morals 
are  debauched  by  the  frequency  of  such  sights,  as  only  fit  them 
to  become  the  masters  of  slaves. 

They  suffer  the  children  when  young  "too  much  to  prowl 
amongst  the  young  negros,  which  insensibly  causes  them 
to  imbibe  their  manners  and  broken  speech." 

Chastellux,  a  French  traveler,  frequently  remarks  on 
the  masses  of  the  poverty-stricken  people  he  saw  in  Vir- 
ginia, some  dressed  in  rags  and  living  in  miserable  huts. 
They  were  indolent  and  hopeless,  a  product  of  the  slave 


Servitude  and  Sexuality  in  the  South         329 

system,   which    degraded   useful   efifort.      From    them 
sprang  many  of  the  "poor  whites"  of  later  days. 

The  record  of  southern  servile  institutions  even  in 
colonial  days  shows  with  sufficient  plainness  that  funda- 
mental morality  is  a  very  scarce  commodity  among  peo- 
ple of  the  ruling  class.  At  best  they  are  willing  to  skim 
the  surface  of  moral  issues  provided  this  can  be  done 
with  advantage  to  their  pocketbooks  or  their  public 
treasury.  It  becomes  evident  from  the  study  of  servi- 
tude and  slavery  if  not  before  that  the  family  is  the 
creature  of  economic  conditions  and  that  sentimental 
morality  is  an  aftergrowth  of  economic  improvement. 
The  large  reason  why  the  ethics  of  the  aristocratic  fam- 
ily dififered  from  that  of  the  slave  union  was  that  the 
members  of  the  former  were  a  product  of  economic 
prowess  while  the  latter  were  the  victims  of  economic 
exploitation.  The  indictment  that  enlightened  judg- 
ment brings  against  the  industrial  system  in  the  colonial 
South  is  precisely  that  which  to-day  is  due  against  the 
capitalist  system  as  the  subverter  of  family  morality  and 
the  enemy  of  the  home. 


XX.    FRENCH  COLONIES  IN  THE  WEST 

The  French  settlements  in  the  Gulf  region,  unlike 
those  in  the  northern  part  of  the  Mississippi  Valley, 
left  an  impress  sufficiently  permanent  and  important  to 
make  them  worthy  of  special  attention. 

A  colony  was  established  at  Mobile  in  1701  and  New 
Orleans  was  founded  in  171 8.  From  the  outset  there 
was  a  constant  appeal  to  the  mother  country  for  wives. 
The  Canadians  of  standing  that  were  married  brought 
their  families  to  Louisiana.  Many  had  grown  daugh- 
ters and  these  married  young  Canadians  of  good  posi- 
tion. The  French  officers,  younger  sons  of  the  nobility, 
could  not  condescend  to  lower  grade  so  they  lived  in 
gay  and  careless  bachelorhood.  Some  of  them  perhaps 
were  relieved  rather  than  distressed  by  the  lack  of 
wives.  But  the  crude  pioneers  of  the  wilderness  needed 
wives.  "With  wives,"  wrote  Iberville,  "I  will  anchor 
the  sorry  coureurs  de  bois  into  sturdy  colonists."  "Send 
me  wives  for  my  Canadians,"  write  Bienville ;  "they  are 
running  in  the  woods  after  Indian  girls." 

In  the  summer  of  1703  twenty-three  young  women  of 
good  character  and  appearance  arrived.  In  1706  Louis 
XIV.  sent  a  number  of  girls  to  Louisiana.  They  were 
to  have  good  homes  and  to  be  well  married.  It  was 
thought  that  they  would  soon  teach  the  squaws  many 
useful  domestic  employments.  But  the  girls  rebelled 
against  Indian  corn,  threatened  to  run  away,  and  stirred 
up  an  imbroglio  known  as  the  Petticoat  Rebellion, 
bringing  much  ridicule  on  the  governor. 


332       The  American  Family  -Colonial  Period 

In  171 3  the  commissary-general  wrote  to  the  minister 
that  twelve  girls  had  lately  arrived  from  France  who 
were  too  ugly  and  badly  formed  to  win  the  affections  of 
the  men  and  that  only  two  of  them  had  found  husbands. 
He  feared  that  the  other  ten  would  remain  in  stock  for 
a  long  time.  He  thought  fit  to  suggest  that  in  future 
those  that  sent  girls  should  attach  more  importance  to 
beauty  than  to  virtue  as  the  Canadians  were  not  partic- 
ular about  what  sort  of  lives  their  spouses  had  formerly 
led  whereas  if  they  were  supplied  only  with  such  ugly 
girls  they  would  prefer  to  take  up  with  Indian  women, 
especially  in  the  Illinois  country  where  the  Jesuits  sanc- 
tioned such  alliances  by  the  marriage  ceremony. 

The  same  year  Governor  Cadillac  wrote  that  the  in- 
habitants were  "a  mass  of  rapscallions  from  Canada,  a 
cut-throat  set,  without  subordination,  with  no  respect 
for  religion  and  abandoned  in  vice  with  Indian  women 
whom  they  prefer  to  French  girls"  and  that  the  soldiers 
all  had  Indian  wives  who  cooked  for  them  and  waited 
on  them.  With  regard  to  a  consignment  of  girls  from 
Europe  the  sea-captain  had  seduced  more  than  half  the 
girls  on  the  passage  and  this  was  why  they  had  not 
found  respectable  husbands.  It  seemed  to  him  best 
under  the  circumstances  that  the  soldiers  should  be  al- 
lowed to  marry  them  lest  their  poverty  should  drive 
them  to  prostitution. 

In  1714  the  Curate  La  Vente  suggested  to  the  min- 
ister that  Louisiana  be  colonized  with  Christian  fam- 
ilies or  else  that  the  French  be  allowed  to  marry  the 
Indian  women  with  religious  rites;  or  if  these  ideas 
were  not  feasible  that  a  large  number  of  girls  "better 
chosen  than  the  last,  and  especially  some  who  will  be 
sufficiently  pleasing  and  well-formed  to  suit  the  officers 


French   Colonies  in  the  TVest  333 

of  the  garrisons  and  the  principal  inhabitants"  should 
be  sent  over  from  France  as  a  partial  remedy. 

From  time  to  time  the  paternal  government  respond- 
ed to  such  requests  with  cargoes  of  women.  In  1721 
twenty-five  prostitutes  came  from  Salpetriere,  a  house 
of  correction  at  Paris,  sent  as  wives  for  the  colonists. 
In  1726  the  Company  of  the  Indies  contracted  with  the 
Ursuline  sisters  to  teach  girls  and  to  serve  as  the  means 
of  transporting  girls  of  good  character  and  training  to 
supply  the  need  of  suitable  wives  for  the  officers  and  for 
the  farmers  and  artisans  of  "the  better  sort."  The  de- 
graded women  first  sent  over  had  often  been  not  only 
unfit  but  unwilling  for  marriage  and  domesticity.  Even 
the  policy  of  granting  discharges  to  the  soldiers  and 
offering  them  land  and  exemption  from  taxation  as  an 
inducement  to  marry  these  women  had  failed  to  solve 
the  problem.    The  colony  needed  mothers. 

The  strength  of  the  demand  is  illustrated  in  a  passage 
by  Dumont  in  reference  to  one  cargo  of  women  : 

When  landed  all  were  lodged  in  the  same  house,  with  a  sentinel 
at  the  door.  They  were  permitted  to  be  seen  during  the  day  in 
order  that  a  choice  might  be  made,  but  as  soon  as  night  fell, 
all  access  to  them  was  guarded.  .  .  It  was  not  long  before 
they  were  married  and  provided  for. 

Indeed  the  supply  never  went  round.  The  last  one  Ictt 
on  one  occasion  became  the  object  of  dispute  between 
two  bachelors  that  wanted  to  fight  for  licr  tho  she  was 
somewhat  of  an  Amazon.  The  commandant  reiiuired 
them  to  draw  lots  for  the  prize.  Once  a  girl  refuseil  to 
marry  tho  "many  good  partis  had  been  offered  her." 

The  year  after  the  Ursulines  a  cari^o  of  girls  came 
who  had  been  chosen  for  character  and  skill  in  house- 
wifery. They  came  of  their  own  accord.  I^ach  was 
dowered  with  a  chest  of  clothing.     They  came  wiih  tlie 


334       ^^^^  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

understanding  that  their  vocation  was  to  be  wifehood 
and  motherhood  but  the  choice  of  husbands  was  to  be 
voluntary  from  among  such  suitors  as  the  sisters,  under 
whose  care  the  girls  were,  should  approve. 

Louisiana  must  have  been  indeed  a  region  of  loose 
morals.  Sieur  Charle,  merchant,  admitted  that  he  had 
a  child  in  1709  by  an  Indian  slave.  Herve  mentions 
one,  Jean  Baptiste,  child  of  an  Indian  woman  of  Sieur 
d'Arbanne,  "whose  son  it  is  held  to  be,  not  only  by  pub- 
lic rumor,  but  by  the  voluntary  account  of  the  mother." 
The  church  did  not  sanction  marriages  with  Indians 
but  such  unions  occurred  and  were  classed  in  the  church 
records  as  mariages  naturels.  We  find  record  also  in 
Herve's  writings  of  one  Capinan's  forsaking  a  slave 
woman  with  whom  he  had  lived  in  a  marriage  of  this 
irregular  species.  The  man  had  found  a  more  desir- 
able partner. 

Cadillac  refers  to  women  of  irregular  life.  Mere 
transplanting  of  the  refuse  of  hospital  and  prison  to  the 
New  World  could  not  metamorphose  them  into  good 
wives  and  mothers.  In  spite  of  great  influx  of  people 
to  Louisiana  in  the  boom  days,  population  does  not  seem 
to  have  grown  fast.  Gradually,  however,  there  grew 
up  an  American  generation  of  women  ready  for  matri- 
mony. Girls  were  often  married  at  twelve  or  fourteen, 
some  of  them  "not  even  knowing  how  many  gods  there 
are  and  you  can  imagine  the  rest."  ^^^  Girls  of  bad  con- 
duct were  "severely  punished  by  putting  them  upon 
wooden  horses  and  having  them  whipped  by  the  regi- 
ment of  soldiers  that  guard  the  town."^"  A  house  for 
the  detention  and  reform  of  immoral  women  was  built 
and  intrusted  to  the  sisters.  Gradually  the  imported 
dregs  of  vice  were  submerged  by  the  natural  conse- 

1^^  Phelps.    Louisiana,  83. 

152  _   I^gjji, 


French   Colonies  in  the  JVest  33; 

quences  of  degeneracy.  Many  officials  had  their  wives 
and  families  with  them  and  kept  clear  of  inferior  mix- 
ture. On  the  Mississippi  the  Germans  had  German 
homes.  Only  a  few  Louisiana  settlers  had  been  per- 
sons of  rank.  Many  of  the  population  descended  from 
the  "casket  girls"  and  from  stock  that  society  considers 
no  account. 

Family  life  was  subject  to  pioneer  exigencies.  In 
the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  t\vo  hundred 
fifty  women  and  children  taken  by  the  Natchez,  and 
retaken,  were  brought  to  New  Orleans.  The  orphan 
girls  were  adopted  by  the  Ursulines.  The  boys  found 
homes  in  well-to-do  families.  All  the  refugees  were 
absorbed,  many  of  the  widows  finding  new  husbands. 
In  1734  occurred  the  marriage  of  one  Baudran  with  the 
publication  of  only  one  ban.  The  reason  for  this 
abridgment  of  the  preliminaries  was  doubtless  that  the 
priest  came  so  seldom.  In  1720  provision  was  made 
(Mobile)  for  registration  of  baptisms,  marriages,  and 
deaths. 

A  side-light  on  the  desire  for  growth  in  numbers  in 
the  colony  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  during  the  Spanish 
regime  the  governor  arrested  the  grand  inquisitor  and 
packed  him  off  to  Spain  in  order  not  to  scare  off  pop- 
ulation. 

A  Spanish  precontract  of  marriage  in  1786  is  interest- 
ing for  comparison  with  English  usage.  The  instru- 
ment provides  for  a  Catholic  marriage,  to  take  place  as 
soon  as  either  person  requests  it.  Neither  is  to  be  liable 
for  the  ante-nuptial  debts  of  the  other;  but  they  shall 
hold  in  common  all  property,  movable  and  immovable, 
according  to  the  custom  of  Spain,  all  other  customs  be- 
ing renounced.  In  case  of  death  of  either  without  i^-^ue 
the  survivor  is  to  receive  the  whole  property. 


336       The  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

Children  brought  up  on  the  coarse  rough  frontier 
were  also  spoiled  by  slavery.  The  girls  caught  less 
coarseness  from  slavery  and  less  roughness  from  the 
w^ilderness.  They  were  thus,  in  a  way,  superior  to  the 
men.  In  old  Louisiana  before  annexation  to  the  United 
States  the  lives  of  the  women  of  the  well-to-do  were 
taken  up  mainly  with  the  supervision  of  their  servants 
and  in  exaggerated  devotion  to  their  children.  Tho 
they  were  personally  attractive  and  of  natural  intelli- 
gence they  appeared  but  little  interesting  to  the  French 
traveller,  or  indeed  to  their  husbands.  Quadroons  at- 
tracted the  men. 

This  brief  view  of  the  southern  French  colony  is  use- 
ful in  two  ways :  it  shows  the  origin  of  the  unique  social 
institutions  of  New  Orleans  and  it  illuminates  by  way 
of  contrast  the  English  development  on  the  Atlantic 
coast  and  helps  us  to  appreciate  the  distinctive  quality 
of  the  English  institutions  from  which  the  American 
family  derives  its  main  features.  There  was  apparent- 
ly less  solidity  and  seriousness  in  the  French  territory. 
The  Puritan  blood  of  France,  or,  if  that  be  too  strong  a 
term,  the  bourgeois  fibre  of  the  nation,  was  by  short- 
sighted intolerance  excluded  from  French  America,  and 
English  America  profited  by  the  Huguenot  strains. 
Thus  the  foundations  for  the  modern,  as  contrasted  with 
the  medieval  family,  were  laid  on  the  Atlantic  coast 
rather  than  in  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi.  By  the 
same  token  England  was  destined  to  possess  the  con- 
tinent. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY^" 

Abbott,  Edith.  Study  of  the  early  history  of  child  labor  in  Amer- 
ica. 

In  the  American  Journal  of  Sociology  (Chicago,  1908-1909),  vol.  xiv, 
15-37- 

Abram,  a.  English  life  and  manners  in  the  later  middle  ages  ( Lon- 
don, 1913). 

Adams,  Brooks.     Law  of  civilization  and  decay  (New  York,  1896). 

Adams,  C.  F.  Familiar  letters  of  John  Adams  and  his  wife  Abigail 
during  the  Revolution   (New  York,  1876). 

Letters  of  Mrs.  Adams,  wife  of  John  Adams,  fourth  edition 

(Boston,  1848). 

■  Sexual  morality  and  church  discipline  in  colonial  New  England. 

In  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Proceedings,  second  ser.  (Boston, 
1873),  vol.  vi,  477-516. 

Adams,  H.  B.     Tithingmen  (Baltimore,  1883). 

Reprinted  from  the  American  Antiquarian  Society,  Publications,  new 
sen,  vol.  i,  part  3. 

Arthur,  T.  S.  and  W.  H.  Carpenter.  History  of  Georgia  (Phila- 
delphia, 1 861). 

Ballagh,  J.  C.     History  of  slavery  in  Virginia  (Baltimore,  i<x>2). 

•  White  servitude  in  the  colony  of  Virginia  (Baltimore,  1895). 

In  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Sci- 
ence, thirteenth  ser.,  nos.  vi-vii,  261-357. 

Barber,  J.  W.  History  and  antiquities  of  the  Northern  States,  third 
edition  (Hartford,  1846). 

Baring-Gould,  S.  Germany  present  and  past  (London,  1S71)),  1 
vols. 

Barton,  R.  T.,  editor.  Virginia  colonial  decisions  (Boston.  i<>()9), 
vol.  i. 


i''3This  is  complete  as  to  source  materials,  but  contains  only  the  more  im- 
portant of  secondary  authorities. 


33^       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

Bassett,  J.  S.  Slavery  and  servitude  in  the  colony  of  North  Caro- 
lina (Baltimore,  1896). 

In  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Sci- 
ence, fourteenth   ser.,   nos.   iv-v,    169-254. 

Bebel,  a.  Woman  and  socialism,  fiftieth  edition,  translated  by  Meta 
L.  Stern  (New  York,  19 10). 

BiCKLEY,  G.  W.  L.  History  of  the  settlement  and  Indian  Wars  of 
Tazewell  County,  Virginia  (Cincinnati,  1852). 

BjoRKMAN,  F.  M.  and  Porritt.  Woman  suffrage  -  history,  argu- 
ments, results  (New  York,  1915). 

Bliss,  W.  R.     Side  glimpses  from  the  colonial  meetinghouse  (Boston, 

1894). 

Brace,  C.  L.     Gesta  Christi  (New  York,  1883). 

Brackett,  J.  R.     The  Negro  in  Maryland  (Baltimore,  1889). 

Bradford,  William.     Plymouth  Plantation,  from  the  original  man- 
uscript (Boston,  1898). 
^^^^gRADLEY,  R.   M,     The  English  housewife  in  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries  (London,  1912). 

Bray,  Reverend  Thomas,  by  B.  C.  Steiner  (Baltimore,  1901). 
In  Maryland  Historical  Society  Fund  Publications,  no.  37. 

Brentano,  L.     History  and  development  of  gilds. 

Preliminary  essay  to  T,  Smith,  English  gilds  (London,  1870;  reprinted 
in  1892). 

Brickell,  J.  Natural  history  of  North  Carolina  (Dublin,  1737; 
reprinted  [Raleigh,  1910?]). 

Brown,  Alexander.     Genesis  of  the  United  States  (Boston,  1890). 

Brown,  E.  H.,  Jr.  First  free  school  in  Queen  Anne's  County  (Bal- 
timore, 191 1 ). 

In  Maryland  Historical  Magazine    (Baltimore,  1911),  vol.  vi,   1-15. 

Browne,  W.  H.     Maryland  (Boston,  1884). 

Bruce,  P.  A.  Institutional  history  of  Virginia  in  the  seventeenth 
century  (New  York,  1910). 

■  Social  life  of  Virginia  in  the  seventeenth  century  (Richmond, 

1907). 

Buckingham,  J.  S.     Slave  states  of  America  (London,  1842). 

BuRK,  J,  [D.],  History  of  Virginia  (Petersburg,  1822),  vol.  ii. 
Appendix  xviii. 

Byington,  E.  H.  Puritan  in  England  and  New  England  (Boston, 
1897). 


Bibliography  339 

Cable,  G.  W.     Creoles  of  Louisiana  (New  York,  1884). 
Cairns,  W.  B.     Selections  from  early  American  writers  (New  York, 

1909). 
Calvin,  John.     Institutes  of  the  Christian  religion  (Philadelphia, 

1844). 
Campbell,  D.     The  Puritan  in   Holland,  England,  and  America, 

third  edition,  revised  and  corrected  (New  York,  1893),  2  vols. 
Campbell,  H.     Women  wage-earners  (Boston,  1893). 
Carroll,  B.   R.,  editor.     Historical  collections  of  South  Carolina 

(New  York,  1836),  vol.  ii. 
Clapp,  T.     Memoirs  of  a  college  president  -  Womanhood  in  early 

America  (Transcript  by  E.  S.  Welles),  (Hartford,  1908). 
In  Connecticut  Magazine,  vol.  xii,  233-239. 
CocKSHOTT,  W.     Pilgrim  fathers  (New  York,  1909). 
Coleman,  W.  M.     History  of  the  primitive  Yankees,  or  the  Pilgrim 

fathers  (Washington,  1881). 
Connecticut  Colonial  Records  (Hartford,  1850-1890). 
Conrad,   H.  C.     History  of  the  state  of  Delaware   (Wilmington, 

1908),  vol.  i. 
Cooke,  G.  W.     Woman  in  the  progress  of  civilization. 

In  the  Chautauquan  (Chautauqua,  N.  Y.),  September,  1909-May,  1910. 
Cooke,  J.  E.     Virginia  (Boston,  1884). 
Cornish,  F.  W.     Chivalry  (London,  1908). 
Cowley,    C.     Our   divorce  courts,    their  origin   and   history.     .     . 

(Lowell,  Mass.,  1879). 
Coxe,  Miss  — .     Claims  of  the  country  on  American  fi-niales  (Co- 
lumbus, 1842). 
Davenport,  C.  B.     Heredity  in  relation  to  eugenics  (New  'i'ork, 

1911). 
Dealey,    J.    Q.     The    family    in    its   sociological    aspects    (Boston 

[1912]). 
Delaware  historical  and  biographical  papers   (Wilmington,   1879- 

1914). 
Delaware   Historical  Society.     Papers    (Wilmington),   vol.   ix 

(1890),  vol.  liv  (1909)- 
Dinsmore,  J.  W.     Scotch-Irish  in  America  (Chicago  \\iyoi{\). 
Documentary   History  of   American    Industrial    Society    (Cleveland, 

1910-1911),  II  vols. 


340       The  American  Family —  Colonial  Period 

Doyle,  J.  A.     English  colonies  in  America:  Virginia,  Maryland,  and 

the  Carolinas  (New  York,  1889),  vol.  i. 
Earle,  a.  M.     Child-life  in  colonial  days  (New  York,  1909). 
Colonial  dames  and  goodwives  (Boston,  1895). 

Colonial  days  in  old  New  York  (New  York,  1896). 

Customs   and    Fashions   in   Old    New    England    (New   York, 

1893). 
Early,  R.  H.     By-waj-s  of  Virginia  history  (Richmond,  1907). 
Early  Records  of  the  town  of  Providence  (Providence,  1892- 1906). 
Edwards,   J.      Works    (Worcester,    1808;    reprinted.    New   York, 

1844). 
Elliott,  C.  W.     New  England  History  (New  York,  1857),  2  vols. 
Faust,   A.    B.     German   elements   in    the   United    States    (Boston, 

1909),  vol,  ii. 
Fernow,    B.,   editor.     Records   of    New  Amsterdam    (New   York, 

1897). 

Ferris,  B.  History  of  the  original  settlements  on  the  Delaware 
(Wilmington,  1846). 

Field,  E.,  editor.  State  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations 
at  the  end  of  the  century  (Boston,  1902),  vol.  iii. 

Fisher,  S.  G.  Men,  women,  and  manners  in  colonial  times  (Phila- 
delphia, 1898),  2  vols. 

The  making  of  Pennsylvania  (Philadelphia,  1896). 

jooTE,  W.  H.     Sketches  of  North  Carolina  (New  York,  1846), 

Sketches  of  Virginia  (Philadelphia,  1850). 

Force,  P.     Tracts  and  other  papers  (Washington,  1 836-1 846). 
Ford,  W.  C,  editor.     Writings  of  George  Washington  (New  York, 

1889-1893). 

Forrest,  J.  D.  Development  of  Western  civilization  (Chicago, 
1907). 

Forrest,  W.  S.  Historical  and  descriptive  sketches  of  Norfolk  and 
vicinity     .     .     .      (Philadelphia,  1853). 

Franklin,  James.  Philosophical  and  political  history  of  the  thir- 
teen United  States  of  America  (Ivondon,  1784). 

Gage,  M.  J.     Woman,  church,  and  state  (Chicago,  1893). 

Georgia  Colonial  Records  (Atlanta),  vol.  ii  (1904),  vol.  iv  (1906), 
vol.  vi  (1906),  vols,  xviii  and  xxi  (1910),  vol.  xxii,  part  i  (1913). 

Georgia  Historical  Society.  Collections  (Savannah),  vol.  i 
(1840),  vol.  ii  (1842),  vol.  iii  (1873),  vol.  iv  (1878). 


Bibliography  ^Xl 

GiDDiNGS,  F.  H.     Natural  history  of  American  morals. 

In  Times  Magazine,  December,  1906,  p.  34. 
Godfrey,  E.     Home  life  under  the  Stuarts,  1603-1649  (New  York, 

1903). 
GooDSELL,  W.     History  of  the  family  as  a  social  and  educational 

institution  (New  York,  1915). 
Goodwin,  J.  A.     The  Pilgrim  Republic  (Boston,  1888). 
JGOODWIN,  M.  W.     The  colonial  cavalier,  or  southern  life  before  the 

Revolution  (New  York,  1894). 
Graham,  A.  A.     Vincennes,  Indiana,  a  century  ago   (Philadelphia, 

1879). 

In  Potter's  American  Monthly,  vol.  xii,  161-171;  289-298. 
Grant,  A.  M.     Memoirs  of  an  American  lady  (London,  1808). 
Griffis,  W.  E.     Story  of  New  Netherlands  (Boston,  1909). 
GuizoT,  F.  P.     History  of  civilization  in  Europe. 
Hall,  C.  C.     Narratives  of  early  Maryland  (New  York.  19 10). 
The  Lords  Baltimore  and  the  Maryland  Palatinate  (Baltimore, 

1904). 
Hall,  G.  S.  and  T.  Smith.     Marriage  and  fecundity  of  colonial  mm 

and  women  (Worcester,  1903). 

In  Pedagogical  Seminary,  vol.  x,  275-314. 
Halsey,  F.  W.,  editor.     Great  epochs  in  American  history    (New 

York  [1912]),  vol.  ii. 
Hamilton,   P.  J.     Colonial   Mobile,   revised   and  enlarged   eiiition 

(Boston,  1910). 
Hart,  A.  B.     American  history  told  by  contemporaries  (New   ^Ork, 

1897),  vol.  i. 

Source  book  of  American  history  (New  York,  1903). 

Hecker,  E.  a.     Short  history  of  woman's  rights  (New  "h'ork.  191  ' ). 
Hennighausen,  L.  p.     History  of  the  German  Societ>-  of  Mary- 
land  (Baltimore,  1 909). 

Redemptioners  and  the  German  Society  (jf   .Mar\l;inil    (Haiti- 


more,  Ii 

In  Society  for  History  of  the  Germans,  Second  .Innual  Kcfxirl. 
Hill,  G.     Women  in  English  life  (I^ondon,  189O),  2  vols. 
HoLCOMB,  T.     Sketch  of  early  ecclesiastical  affairs  in  New  Castle, 

Delaware,  and  history  of  Immanucl  Church  (W^ilmington,  iS<><)). 
Holder,  C.  F.     Quakers  in  Great  Britain  and  Anirrii  a  (  New  ^'ork, 

1913)- 


342       The  American  Family -Colonial  Period 

Holy  Trinity  -  Old  Swede  -  Church.  Records,  1697-1773  (Wil- 
mington, 1890). 

In  Delaware  Historical  Society  Papers,  vol.  ix. 

Howard,  G.  E.  History  of  matrimonial  institutions  (Chicago, 
[1904]),  3  vols. 

Howe,  D.  W.  Puritan  republic  of  Massachusetts  Bay  (Indianapo- 
lis [1899]). 

Howe,  H.     Historical  collections  of  Virginia  (Charleston,  1852). 

Ingle,  E.     Parish  institutions  of  Maryland  (Baltimore,  1883). 

In  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Sci- 
ence, first  ser.,  Local  Institutions,  no.  vi. 

Irving,  W.  Knickerbocker  history  of  New  York  (Philadelphia, 
1836). 

Itinerant  Observations  in  America  (Savannah,  1878). 
Reprinted  from  the  London  Magazine,  1745. 

James,  E.  W.,  editor.  Lower  Norfolk  County,  Virginia  Antiquary, 
vol.  i  (Richmond,  1897). 

Kercheval,   S.     History  of   the  Valley  of  Virginia    (Winchester, 
"^  Va.,  1833). 

Keyser,  N.  H.  et  al.  History  of  old  Germantown  (Philadelphia, 
1907). 

King,  G.  New  Orleans,  the  place  and  the  people  (New  York, 
1896). 

Kingsbury,  S.  M.,  editor.  Records  of  the  Virginia  Company  (Wash- 
ington, 1906). 

KuHNS,  O.  German  and  Swiss  settlements  of  colonial  Pennsyl- 
vania: a  study  of  the  so-called  Pennsylvania  Ehitch  (New  York, 
1901). 

Kulturgeschichte  des  Mittelalters  mit  Einschluss  der  Renaissance 
und  Reformation  (Leipzig,  1897). 

Lee,  F.  B.  New  Jersey  as  a  colony  and  as  a  state  (New  York, 
1 902 ) . 

Letters  from  Virginia;  translated  from  the  French  (Baltimore, 
1816). 

LiPSON,  E.  Introduction  to  the  economic  history  of  England  (Lon- 
don, 1915),  vol,  i. 

Little,  J.  P.     Richmond  (Richmond,  1851), 

Logan,  Mrs.  J.  A.  The  part  taken  by  women  in  American  history 
(Wilmington,  Del.,  1912). 


Bibliography  ^^•^ 


Low,  A.  M.  The  American  people:  I.  The  planting  of  a  nation 
(Boston,  1909). 

McCoRMAC,  E.  I.  White  servitude  in  Maryland,  1634- 1820  (Bal- 
timore, 1904). 

In  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Sci- 
ence, twenty-second  ser.,  nos.  3-4,  pp.  113-22+. 

MacGill,  C.  E.  Myth  of  the  colonial  housewife  (New  York, 
1910). 

In  Independent,  vol.  Ixix,  1318-1322. 

Mackenzie,  E.  Historical,  topographical,  and  descriptive  view  of 
the  United  States  of  America  and  of  Upper  and  Lower  Canada 
(Newcastle  upon  Tyne  [1819]). 

Maryland.     Archives  (Baltimore,  1 883-1 914). 

Maryland  Historical  Society.  Fund  Publications  (Baltimore, 
1867-1900). 

Maryland,  Society  for  History  of  Germans  in  Sixth  Annual  Re- 
port, 1 891-1892  (Baltimore). 

Massachusetts.     Colonial  Laws  (Boston,  1889). 

Massachusetts  Bay.  Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  (Bos- 
ton, 1869),  vol.  i. 

Massachusetts  Colonial  Society.  Publications  (Boston),  vol. 
vii  (1905),  vol.  xii  (1911). 

Massachusetts  Historical  Society.     Collections  (Boston,  1792- 

1915). 

Proceedings,  second  ser.  (Boston,  1906),  vol.  xix. 

Mather,  C.     Magnalia  (Hartford,  1855),  vol.  i. 

Diary. 

In  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  seventh  ser.,  vols,  vii 

and  viii. 
Meily,  C.     Puritanism  (Chicago  [1911]). 
MiLLiGAN,  Doctor  — .     Short  description  of  the  province  of  South 

Carolina,  1763  (Charleston,  1858). 

In  Carroll,  Historical  Collections  of  South  Carolina,  vol.  ii. 
Moore,  G.  H.     Notes  on  the  history  of  slavery  in   Massachusetts 

(New  York,  1866). 
Morong,  T.     Puritan  life  and  manners  (Boston,  1871). 
Morton,  O.  F.     History  of  Highland  County,  Virginia  (  Montrrry, 

Va.  [1911]). 
Motley,  J.  L.     Rise  of  the  Dutch  Republic  (Philadelphia,  n.  d.), 

3  vols. 


344       ^^^  American  Family  -  Colonial  Period 

Myers,  A.  C.  Immigration  of  the  Irish  Quakers  into  Pennsylvania, 
1682-1750  ( Swarthmore,  1902). 

Myers,  G.  History  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
(Chicago,  1912). 

Neal,  D.     History  of  New  England  (London,  1747),  2  vols. 

Neill,  E.  D.     Virginia  Carolorum  (Albany,  1886). 

Virginia  Vetusta  (Albany,  1885). 

New  Haven  Colonv  and  Plantation,  Records  (Hartford,  1857- 
1858). 

New  Plymouth  Colony.     Laws  (Boston,  1836). 

New  York.  Documents  relating  to  the  colonial  history  of  the  state 
(Albany,  1853-1887). 

Niesen,  — .  Abridgment  of  public  acts  of  Assembly  of  Virginia  in 
force  Jan.  i,  1758  (Glasgow,  1759). 

Noble,  F.  A.     The  Pilgrims  (Boston,  1907). 

Norris,  J.  S.  The  early  Friends  in  Maryland  (Baltimore,  1862). 
In  Maryland  Historical  Society  Publications. 

North  Carolina  Baptist  Historical  Papers,  April,  1898  (Hender- 
son, N.  C). 

Booklet  (Raleigh,  1903- 1908),  vols,  iii-v,  vii,  viii. 

Colonial  record   (Raleigh,   1886- 1890). 

Oglethorpe,  J.  E.     New  and  accurate  account  of  the  Provinces  of 

South  Carolina  and  Georgia  (London,  1732). 
[Oldmixon,  J.].     The  British  Empire  in  America  (London,  1741). 
Oneal,   J.     Workers   in  American   History,   third   edition,   revised 

and  enlarged  (St.  Louis,  1912). 
Otto,    E.     Deutsches    Frauenleben    im    Wandel    der    Jahrhunderte 

(Leipzig,  1903). 
Painter,  F.  V.  N.     Luther  on  education  (Philadelphia  [1889]). 
Palfrey,  J.   G.     Compendious  history  of  New   England    (Boston, 

1884). 
Parce,  L.     Economic  determinism  (Chicago,  1913). 
Paston  Letters  (London,  1872- 1875). 
Patten,    S.    N.     Development    of    English    thought    (New    York, 

1899). 
Pennsylvania  German  Society.     Publications  (Lancaster,  Pa.), 
vol.  X  (1900),  vol.  xiii  (1902). 


Bibliography  -^^.^ 

Pennyp ACKER,  S.  W.  Settlement  of  Germantown  (Lancaster,  Pa., 
1899). 

In  Pennsylvania  German  Society,  Publications,  vol.  ix,   53-345. 
Petrie,  G.     Church  and  state  in  early  Maryland  (Baltimore,  1892). 
Phelps,  A.     Louisiana,  a  record  of  expansion  (Boston,  1905). 
Phillips,  L.  A.     Home  life  and  training  of  New  England  children 
in  the  seventeenth  century  (Boston,  1896). 
In  the  Bostonian,  vol.  iii,  329-334. 

P*ICKETT,  A.  J.  History  of  Alabama,  new  edition  (Charleston, 
1896). 

Pierce,  C.  H.  New  Harlem  past  and  present  (New  York.  1903). 
I  Pierce,  M.  B.  Shreds  and  patches  of  Virginia  history  (East  Au- 
^rora,  N.  Y.  [1906]). 

Plymouth  Colony  Laws  (Boston,  1836). 

Records,  vol.  iii  (Boston,  1855). 

Pollard,  A.  F.     Factors  in  modern  history  (London,  1907). 

Position  of  women:  actual  and  ideal,  with  preface  by  Sir  Oliver 
Lodge  (London,  191 1). 

Powell,   L,   P,     History  of  education  in  Delaware   (Washington, 

1893). 
Raper,    C.    L.     Social    life    in    colonial    North    Carolina    (Raleigii, 

1903). 

In  North  Carolina  Booklet,  vol.  iii,  no.  5. 
Ravenel,  Mrs.  St.  J.     Charleston,  the  place  and  the  people  (New 

York,  1906). 
Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records  (Providence,  1856-1865). 
Richard,  E.     History  of  German  Civilization  (New  "VOrk,  i<)ii). 
Richardson,  H.  D.     Sidelights  on  Maryland  History  (Baltiinorr. 

1913),  vol  i. 
RiDGELY,  H.  W.     The  old  brick  churches  of  Maryland  (New  "^'nrk. 

1894). 
Ross,  E.  A.     Origins  of  the  American  people. 

In  the  Century   (New  York,  1913-1914),  new  ser.,  vol.  Ixv,  712-718. 
Rush,  B.     Account  of  the  manners  of  the  German  inhabitants  of 

Pennsylvania   (1789),  edited  by  Rupp   (  Phihidclpliia.   1875). 
Salley,  a.  S.,  editor.     Narratives  of  Early  Carolina   (Nrw  ^'ork, 

1911). 


34^       The  American  Family —  Colonial  Period 

Salley,    a.    S.,    editor.     Marriage    notices    in    the   South    Carolina 
Gazette  and  its  successors,  1732-1801   (Albany,  1902). 

ScHANTZ,  F.  J.  T.     Domestic  life  and  characteristics  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania German  Pioneer  (Lancaster,  Pa.,  1900). 
In  Pennsj'lvania  German  Society,  Publications,  vol.  x. 

ScHERR,  J.     Geschichte  der  deutschen  Frauenwelt  (Leipzig,  1873), 
2  vols. 

ScHOULER,  J.     Americans  of  1776  (New  York,  1900). 

Scribner's  Magazine  (New  York,  1911),  vol.  1,  761-764. 

Seignobos,  C.     History  of  Medieval  and  Modern  Civilization  (New 
York,  1909). 

Sewall,  S.     Diary  (Boston,  1882). 

In  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  fifth  ser.,  vol.  vii. 

Singleton,  E.     Dutch  New  York  (New  York,  1909). 

SioussAT,  A.     Colonial  women  of  Maryland  (Baltimore,  1907). 
In  Maryland  Historical  Magazine,  vol.  ii,  214-226. 

Smith,  William.     History  of  New  York  (1756). 

Smythe,  W.  E.     Conquest  of  arid  America  (New  York,  1900). 

Sollers,  B.     Transported  convict  laborers  in  Maryland  during  the 
colonial  period  (Baltimore,  1907). 

In  Maryland  Historical  Magazine,  vol.  ii,  17-47. 

South  Carolina  historical  and  genealogical  magazine  (Charleston, 
1900-1911),  passim. 

South  Carolina  Historical  Society.     Collections   (Charleston, 
1897),  vol.  v. 

South  Carolina  Huguenot  Society.    Transactions  (Charleston, 
1889-1897),  nos.  2-5. 

Southern  Historical  Association.     Publications  (Washington), 
vol.  i  (1897),  vol,  vi  (1902),  vol.  vii  (1903). 

Stanton,  Mrs.  E.  C,  et  al.,  editors.     History  of  woman  suffrage 
(Rochester,  1889- 1902),  4  vols. 

Steiner,  B.  C.     Beginnings  of  Maryland,   1 631-1639    (Baltimore, 
1903). 

In  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Sci- 
ence, twenty-first  ser.,  nos.  8-10,  pp.  353-464. 

Stiles,  H.  R.     Bundling  (Albany,  1869). 

Stille,  C.  J.     Studies  in  Medieval  HistorJ^  second  edition   (Phila- 
delphia, 1883). 
Sumner,  W.  G.     Folkways  (Boston,  1911). 


Bibliography  ^^j 

Tailfer,  p.     True  and  historical  narrative  of  the  colony  of  Georgia 

(Charleston,  1741). 
Thom,  W.  T.     The  struggle  for  religious  freedom  in  Virginia:  the 

Baptists  (Baltimore,  1900). 

In  Johns   Hopkins   University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Sci- 
ence, eighteenth  sen,  nos.  10-12,  pp.  477-581. 

Thwaites,  R.  G.     Colonies,  1 492-1 750,  second  edition  (New  York, 

1891). 
Tompkins,  D.  A.     History  of  Mecklenburg  County  and  the  city  of 

Charlotte  (Charlotte,  N.  C,  1903). 
Traill,   H.  D.  and  J.  S.   Mann,  editors.     StKial  England    (New 

York  [1902-1903]),  vols,  iii,  iv. 
Turner,   E.  R.     History  of  slavery  in   Pennsylvania    (Baltimore, 

1911). 
Turner,    C.    H.    B.     Some   records   of   Sussex   County,    Delaware 

(Philadelphia,  1909). 
North   Carolina  University.     James   Sprunt    Historical   Publica- 
tions (Chapel  Hill,  N.  C,  1912),  vol.  ii. 
Van  Rensselaer,  Mrs.  J.  K.     The  goede  Vrouw  of  Mana-ha-ta 

at  home  and  in  society,  1609-1760  (New  York,  1898). 
Van  Rensselaer,  Mrs.  S.     History  of  the  city  of  New  \'urk  in  the 

seventeenth  century  (New  York,  1909). 
Vedder,  H.  C.     The  Reformation  in  Germany  (New  York,  191 4)- 
Vincent,  F.    History  of  the  state  of  Delaware  (Philadelphia,  1870), 

vol.  i. 
Virginia  Historical  Society.     Collections  (Richmond),  new  ser., 

vol.  i  (1882),  vol.  X  (1891). 
Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography  (Richmond). 
Ward,  L.  F.     Pure  sociology  (New  York,  1911)- 
Weeden,  W.  B.     Early  Rhode  Island  (New  "^'ork  [i<)i(>)). 
Economic  and  social  history  of  New  England   (  Hostoii,   iS'M)). 

2  vols. 
Weeks,   S.   B.     Church   and  state  in   North  Carolina    (Baltimore, 

1893). 

Wertenbaker,  T.  J.  Patrician  and  pli-hciaii  in  Virginia  (Char- 
lottesville, 1910). 

Wharton,  A.  H.     Colonial  days  and  dames  (Philadelphia.  i8«)S). 

White,  Henry.     Early  history  of  New  England  (Hf^ton.  1841). 

Whittemore,  W.  H.  Colonial  laws  of  Massachusetts,  i(>(x>i()7i 
(Boston,  1889). 


34B  Bibliography 

WiNTHROP,   J.     Journals,   edited   by  J.   K.    Hosmer    (New  York, 
1908). 

Wise,  J.  C.     Ye  Kingdom  of  Accawmacke  or  the  eastern  shore  of 
Virginia  in  the  seventeenth  century  (Richmond,   191 1). 

WooLSEY,  T.  D.     Divorce  and  divorce  laws  in  the  United  States 
(New  Haven,  1868). 

In  the  Neiv  Englander,  vol.  xxvii,  517-550. 

YoxGE,  S.  H.     The  site  of  old  "James  Towne"  (Richmond,  1907). 

Young,  A,     Chronicles  of  the  first  planters  of  the  colony  of  Massa- 
chusetts Bay,  from  1623  to  1636  (Boston,  1846). 

ZwiERLEiN,  F.  J.     Religion  in  New  Netherland  (Rochester,  1910). 


I'MVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA   LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  hook  isDlF  —  •" 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


LOU«L 


•IRt 
AUQ  231982 

RQTDIMB 

FEB  271Sif 


RtCD 


ORION  .  «  ,rtA 

■ft 


^9, 


MIV 


3    1158  00128  4 


